Grouping journalism with the humanities as Goldacre (2008: 207-8) has done, or even with the arts, as suggested by Hartz and Chappell (1997), it easily takes its place at the pole opposing the sciences. When surveyed, both journalists and scientists will frequently profess to the existence of Snow’s gulf of miscomprehension (Hartz and Chappell, 1997; European Commission, 2007b). With ‘[s]cientists who don’t speak English’ and ‘[r]eporters who don’t speak science’ (Hartz and Chappell, 1997: 21-22) there are instances in which the two groups literally speak diﬀerent languages – and that is only one of many barriers that block the ﬂow of science communication in modern Anglo-American societies. Considering that the lay public receives most of its information about science and health from the news media (Nelkin, 1995: 67; House of Lords, 2000), implications of this corrupted ﬂow are potentially severe. The literature on the problem-ridden subject of scientists and journalists is
already extensive and it continues to grow. A detailed examination of both the scientiﬁc and the journalistic viewpoints is given in early key texts on the topic by Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers (1986), by Nelkin (1995) and by Hartz and Chapell (1997). More recent accounts are provided in a literature review by Weigold (2001), in the newly launched magazine Science Journalism in Europe published by and for science journalists and academics (Lehmkuhl, 2008), and in a 2007 survey of European scientists and media professionals by the European Commission (2007a, 2007b).