1st ECSJ was attended by 300 participants (c) Thomas Steen Sørensen
First Announcement
2nd European Conference for Science Journalists
ECSJ2015
Budapest
3 November 2015
Time: Registration starts at 8.30 hrs, ECSJ conference programme 9–17.30 hrs
Venue: Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Address: Hungary 1051 Budapest, Nádor u 7
Organised by the Hungarian Association of Science Journalists and European Union of Science Journalists´Associations EUSJA
Dear friends,
We cordially invite you to participate the Second European Conference for Science Journalists in Budapest, November 2015. This is a unique networking event with numerous specialised science journalists reflecting their profession, competencies and challenges.
One major milestone will be the launch of a new ambitious network across Europe. Be sure not to miss this opportunity to join us in beautiful Budapest.
THEMES OF THE CONFERENCE:
Science journalism in society
• Media is becoming more dependent of science stories written or influenced by stakeholders. This stakeholder driven communication has severe impact on the quality, ethics and credibility of the science stories in the public space. How can science journalists get back into the picture?
Journalists as entrepreneurs
• Many science journalists are facing tough time as news media are cutting down on the journalistic coverage of science. We present models on how journalists can change the market and sell their stories on new platforms and media.
Communication of infectious diseases
• Next pandemic on its way? We will hear from stakeholders and discuss how science journalists can play a role when everybody is asking for answers.
Science journalists in the climate debate
• The real magnitude and severity of the global environmental challenges may be deliberately manipulated by stakeholders with vested interests. It is difficult to convince the editor and the audience that it is worth spending time understanding the complex story, which deals with the unpleasant information.
LAUNCH OF EUSJA INNOVATION NETWORK
INVITATION TO COLLABORATE
You are invited to impact the programme planning by suggesting a speaker or a topic to the themes described above.If you are suggesting a speaker, please provide his or hers cv and indicate if you have a possibility to support the participation of the speaker.
The organisers will hold the final decision of any suggestions to the programme. In addition, all financial support will be made public. Please send you suggestion by 30 June to 2ecsj2015@gmail.com
WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
If you are interested in stories covering science, technology and health, environmental questions and ecology or if you are interested in science related projects this is a good opportunity for you to get acquainted with topical themes and experts.
The conference is open to science journalists, science communicators, researchers or anyone interested in science journalism.
SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
We offer sponsorship opportunities.Please contact the International steering group members for further information.
EMAIL ADDRESS FOR SUGGESTING A SPEAKER OR A TOPIC BY 30 JUNE 2015 email: 2ecsj2015@gmail.com
International steering group
Mr. Jens Degett, president 1st ECSJ2014
Email: jens@degett.org
Ms. Reetta Kettunen, vice-president, WCSJ2013
Email: reetta.kettunen@tsv.fi
Ms. Satu Lipponen, president EUSJA
Email: satu.lipponen@cancer.fi
Mr. István Palugyai, president 2nd ECSJ2015
Email: istvan.palugyai@nepszabadsag.hu
Local organizing committee
Mr. Gergely Böhm
Mr. János Dürr
Mr. János Gács
Ms. Júlia Gimes
Ms. Anna Mécs
Mr. István Palugyai (Chair)
Mr. Tamás Simon
Follow www.eusja.org and @eusja.org or EUSJA FB pages for more information. ECSJ2015 Budapest is the special Facebook group for the conference.
A warm welcome!
István Palugyai, ECSJ2015 and Satu Lipponen, EUSJA
The Nobelhuset wants to put Stockholm on the global map. A posh new building shall house “nobel rock stars like Einstein, Hemingway and the Dalai Lama”, provide a global stage for research, connect natural sciences and culture with social issues and become a grand platform for societal debate. Very noble, but unfortunately many Stockholmers don’t like the big “shiny box”.
During the recent EUSJA study trip to Stockholm, the Chief Executive Officer of the Nobelhuset AB, Susanne Lindh, presented the design to European science journalists. The dream of having a special venue goes back to the year 1900, she said. Alfred Nobel and later the Nobel Foundation wanted to have a proper place for the nobel ceremony. Because of the lack of a better location, traditionally the laureates were received in Stockholm’s Concert Hall. Imagine how beautifully crafted Live Edge Coffee Tables would enhance such a prestigious setting.
Nobel venue for more than a century, Stockholm’s Concert Hall (c) Wikimedia Commons, Andy Eick
Now the old dream is getting close to fulfillment. In April 2014 the British architect David Chipperfield won the competition for the Nobel House design. The new venue, if built, would go up right at Stockholm’s waterfront, next to the National Museum and in the close vicinity of Royal Castle.
Ms. Lindh, former director of the City’s Planning Commission, showed an impressive structure of steel and glass, eight stories high and with a capacity for a few thousand visitors. The brass gives the rectangular structure a golden shine which prompted one of the onlookers to call it to a “golden cube”. The costs of around 100 million Euros seem to have been raised and if everything goes according to schedule, the Nobelhuset would be inaugurated at the 2019 nobel award ceremony.
Nobelhuset CEO Susanne Lindh presents design to EUSJA study trip participants (c) Goede
Principally, the venue would become a huge science center with exhibitions, seminars, lectures and debates. It shall reduce the distance between citizens and scientists, promote research as an intellectual engine, draw regular people and tourists. If they sit down in the restaurant, they may feel like attending a nobel ceremony, when they order the menu which is being served at the nobel banquet.
Apart from very popular features, there is a special emphasis on education and schools, Susanne Lindh continued. The ambitious plan is that every Swedish child visits the new nobel house once in his school time. That, of course, shall make the students curious about science, inspire them and pave the road for scientific careers. A small country like Sweden with a population of less than ten million counts on science as an important economic driver. Already the city is making great efforts to establish itself as a European center for digital health and life sciences.
Current picture of the site: The old Customs Building in front needs to be demolished for the Nobel House (c) Kaianders Sempler
Many renown people are backing the project. One of them is Gunnar von Heijne, a professor for theoretical chemistry, who in a youtube video comes out with some highly convincing arguments. In the tradition of Alfred Nobel, to create a better world with the most creative and innovative ideas, the new Nobel House could reframe natural sciences, humanities and peace efforts and bring them together, he believes. In this scheme, they would be linked more closely with culture and, essentially, social issues. This truly transdisciplinary approach would be unique in Heijne’s mind “and does not exist anywhere else”.
In other words, for the first time a feedback system between natural and social sciences would be generated under the cultural umbrella with exchanges into both directions. When asked whether the Nobel Foundation would consider a broader portfolio and also honor breakthroughs in the social sciences, Susanne Lindh shook her head. She responded that the Nobel operation is very conservative and would not change the setup. However changes are contemplated and currently it is being discussed whether climate change should be included as a novel theme.
Golden Cube for scientific enlightenment (c) Chipperfield Architects
The construction plans could proceed properly and make Nobel a global brand, if Stockholmers weren’t against the architecture of the venue. Since the first release one year ago, there is a rising opposition. Citizens and environmentalists claim that the building is oversized, dwarfs the surrounding structures, some of which even need to be demolished and just does not fit into a historically evolved urban landscape made up of masonry.
“The Nobelhuset sticks out like a sore thumb” or “looks like a UFO”, some adversaries have charged. Most recently they received support from Stockholm politicians. Rasmus Jonlund, a Liberal and vice chairman of the city council’s cultural environment committee, is quoted as dismissing the design as an oversized “shiny box”.
“I believe there is a fifty to fifty chance for construction or dismissal of the design”, says Kaianders Sempler, science journalist and resident of Stockholm. The Nobelhuset has become a prestigious project to promote the science-based industries, he explains, “and many Stockholmers don’t get what it is needed for”. But you never know, he cautions, “after a while we might get used to it”. Another option is that the scheme is being altered before scrapping it altogether.
Stockholm resident Kaianders Sempler: It stands 50 to 50 (c) Sempler
Perhaps Chipperfield only needs to adjust the light flow. A less glossy shell could reconcile the Stockholmers and would put the extraordinary content into the limelight.
JASTJ Study Trip to Fukushima: Protective clothes against radiation is mandatory (c) JASTJ, Takahashi
Many colleagues will remember ESOF 2012 Dublin. EUSJA had organized a science debate on the future of energy with a focus on the FUKUSHIMA REACTOR MELTDOWN. We had two prominent Japanese panelists. Mariko Takahashi, editor of Asahi Shimbun, criticized a “media meltdown”, fanned also by European media, zeroing in on “printing rumors, sensations” and promoting “hysterical fear-mongering along with racial, cultural and political bias”.
Her fellow countryman Fumio Arakawa, engineer and member of the Global Engineering Institute in Tokyo, came from another angle. He demanded more ethical standards in engineering and technology regarding its impact on society, criticized Japan’s electricity companies for hyping nuclear power and made a pitch for overcoming “the monetary infected society” and to “draw the road map to a socio economic future”.
ESOF Dublin 2012: Future of energy with Fumio Arakawa. He demanded to transform energy wasting society (c) Goede
Now science journalists have the chance to see, ask, listen and judge for themselves. Mariko and the Japanese Association of Science & Technology Journalists JASTJ are organizing after the World Conference of Science Journalists WCSJ 2015 Seoul in June a press tour to Fukushima. And this is the invitation passed on by Mariko:
This press tour is planned to be held with grants from the Toshiba International Foundation, the Secom Science and Technology Foundation, and the Tokyo Club, and in cooperation with Japan Airlines and East Japan Railway Company.
ESOF Dublin panel with Mariko Takahashi (r.): She charged “media meltdown” and “fear-mongering” (c) Goede
Application Details
Overview
This press tour will visit Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, site of the nuclear accident that occurred during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, and a nearby town affected by the disaster. Participants will travel by bus from Tokyo to Fukushima, and visit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant while wearing protective clothing. The tour will also hear from locals of Miharu, Fukushima, 45 kilometers from Fukushima Daiichi, about the conditions at the time of the accident and the current state of reconstruction efforts.
Itinerary
<Day 1: June 11, 2015 (Thursday)>
19:20-21:30 Gimpo International Airport→Haneda Airport (JAL Flight 94)
Night Stay in Tokyo
<Day 2: June 12, 2015 (Friday)>
Afternoon Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
Fukushima: Nuclear power plant after meltdown (c) JASTY, Takahashi
Night Stay in Miharu, Fukushima
<Day 3: June 13, 2015 (Saturday)>
Morning Miharu, Fukushima
19:45-22:05 Haneda Airport→Gimpo International Airport (JAL Flight 95)
Press tour ends at Gimpo International Airport
Number of Participants
15 participants. If there are more applicants than the number of spots available, participants will be selected with priority given to journalists, and consideration for the order applications were received and balance between regions.
3. Conditions to Apply
・Must participate in WCSJ2015.
・Must have a credit card that can pay the registration fee.
・Must have English skills sufficient to carry out interviews in English.
Registration Fee
¥10,000 (includes the cost of ① return airfare between Seoul and Tokyo, and ② transportation and accommodation (including breakfast) in Japan, indicated in the itinerary)
ESOF Dublin Debate: After experts presented energy options participants of the session debated them at roundtables and made recommendations (c) Goede
After sending the form, please send a copy of your passport to ma@fpcjpn.or.jp with “Application for Post WCSJ2015 Japan Tour 1 <Fukushima>” as the subject. An email confirming receipt of the application will be sent within three days of receiving the application.
[Application Deadline] Must arrive by noon (GMT) on April 18th, 2015
(2) All applicants will be informed of the results of their application by April 30. Participation in the tour will be considered confirmed after payment of the registration fee by credit card.
6. Notes
(1) This tour is organized by the Japanese Association of Science & Technology Journalists (JASTJ) and run by the Foreign Press Center Japan (FPCJ).
(2) JASTJ and the FPCJ will not be liable for any inconvenience, trouble or accident that might occur in the course of the tour. Each participant should purchase their own overseas travel insurance.
(3) This press tour will require participants to cover part of the cost, but is not s profit-making venture.
(4) This tour will begin and end in Seoul. It is not possible for participants to leave the tour partway through, including for such reasons as returning to their home country directly from Japan or staying for longer in Japan.
(5) As a participant in this tour, it may not be possible to attend official WCSJ2015 events on June 11, depending on flight availability.
(6) This tour will include entering the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In order to prevent the spread of irradiated material, wearing protective clothing is required. The expected radiation is from 0.1 to 0.3 mSv.
(7) For photography and filming in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, only one movie camera and one still camera are allowed. One movie camera and one still camera chosen from among the participants will serve as a pool for all journalists.
(8) Please be aware that for the accommodations on June 12, rooms will be shared with other participants, with men and women separate.
(9) No refunds will be given for the registration fee after it has been paid, regardless of the reason. There may be others waiting for spots to open from cancellations, so please contact the FPCJ as soon as possible if it is no longer possible for you to participate in the tour.
(10) This tour is being held thanks to financial assistance and cooperation from multiple companies and organizations. Please cooperate with our report to these organizations by submitting your response to a survey after the tour, and submitting any articles written based on the tour.
Contact Information
(For questions about tour details)
Japanese Association of Science & Technology Journalists (JASTJ) Executive Office
5F Toyama Kaikan, 5-1-3 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 〒112-0001
On the second day of this tour, participants will be driven by bus to the seismically isolated building used as on-site headquarters for the initial disaster response, the advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) used to decontaminate water, the vast number of tanks holding contaminated water, the spent fuel pool for Reactor 4, and the harbor and breakwaters that were damaged by the tsunami and given emergency repairs. A Q&A session is also planned with the Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Company. The following day, the tour will visit Miharu, Fukushima, 45 kilometers from Fukushima Daiichi, and speak with a former town official from the time of the disaster, an expert on radiation protection, and a priest who works with residents affected by the disaster. Participants will be able to gain a variety of perspectives on the reality of the Fukushima disaster, including the situation in the power plant at the time of the accident and the difficulty of responding to the accident, confusion among residents due to failures to communicate by the government and TEPCO, the reality of damage from radiation, current irradiation of agricultural and marine products, and prejudice against Fukushima.
Itinerary
<Day 1: June 11, 2015 (Thursday)>
19:20-21:30 Gimpo International Airport→Haneda Airport (JAL Flight 94)
Night Stay in Tokyo
<Day 2: June 12, 2015 (Friday)>
Early Morning Leave hotel (chartered bus, 3 hours travel time)
Before Lunch Preparatory briefing for coverage of nuclear plant (J-Village)
Afternoon Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
★Protective equipment must be worn, expected radiation is from
0.1 to 0.3 mSv.
Afternoon Q&A session (J-Village)
Night Stay in Miharu, Fukushima
<Day 3: June 13, 2015 (Saturday)>
Morning Leave hotel (chartered bus)
Before Lunch Seminar and discussion
-Shigeru Fukaya, former deputy mayor of Miharu
-Takashi Koike, assistant professor at Tohoku University Department of
In 2013 EUSJA sent its journalists to Florence – to participate the prestigious European biannual congress “Pain in Europe”. This interesting scientific meeting always attracts science journalists since is giving a good chance to meet famous researchers and world’s leading pain experts. We’ve got many applications to attend the Congress and a good feedback from our members.
This year the 9-th Congress of the European Pain Federation, EFIC 2015, will take a place in Vienna (September 2 – 5). The preliminary programme is already available to http://efic.kenes.com/. Some outstanding scientists were announced among the speakers: Andrew Moore (UK), Ralf Baron (Germany), Michaela Kress (Austria), Rebeccah Slater (UK), Liesbet Goubert (Belgium), Michele Sterling (Australia), Kris Vissers (Netherlands), Luana Colloca, Vania Apkarian (both – USA) and others.
EUSJA continues its fruitful collaboration with the organizers of the Congress. We have 8 slots. The organizers will cover accommodation up to 4 nights (starting from September 1), the journalists, like always to EUSJA study trips, will take care of their traveling. The applications must be sent via national associations: name, media, e-mail, mobile. The deadline is May 31.
Precarious: Many sci journos cannot live off science journalism anymore (c) Antonio Calvo
During the EUSJA General Assembly 2015 in Stockholm, delegates from throughout Europe assessed the state of the art of science journalism. It revealed a broad scope of definitions, also due to the variety of cultures. Despite of this plurality, the unique base of the profession seems to be threatened by erosion. A decreasing amount of science journalists cannot make a living off science journalism anymore. An increasing number is accepting offers in communication to make up for the loss. It was commonly agreed though that EUSJA, also in its long-standing tradition, has to provide a roof for both, science journalists and communicators, and at the same time start to enforce journalistic training!
His country, by far not the smallest one in Europe, can feed only 15 science journalists, reported one delegate. This is the reason why his science journalistic association has passed a new constitution which welcomes communicators, PR people however are asked to leave. All in all, his association recognizes science journalism as a central benchmark of the profession, assured the delegate
The representative of a significantly larger country observed a critically shrinking market. It allows only ten pure science journalists to make a living.
To make sure that colleagues comply with the standards of journalism an association made up of 15 full-time science journalists requests its member to sign a code of ethics.
Another association with only 21 members admits only science journalists, no PR people, but has a clear focus on being inclusive, asserted the delegate. That shall ease the tension between the two fractions, which in some countries has escalated to a kind of cold war.
Whether science journalists are critics or loudspeakers was already debated at the very first ESOF conference 2004 in Stockholm, remembered an old-timer.
A renown book author about a variety of scientific topics from an Eastern country, who took an active role in breaking away from the Soviet empire, recognizes himself in the first place as an educator. To be an educator and a journalist, responded his colleague from another Eastern country, is no contradiction. But for himself he rather would put the emphasis on being a watchdog.
If independence is the key criterium of a full-blooded science journalist, one Scandinavian delegate wondered, how independent could a science journalist be, with all editorial strings, business-driven interests and controls by the scientific community attached.
Science journalism is under stress (c) Goede
One delegate had principal reservations about current definitions. He warned that defining who is a journalist and who is not one and especially making the frame too narrow could infringe on the freedom of speech.
Another delegate from Central Europe freely admitted that he could not live off science journalism anymore and observed that most members of his association engaged in corporate publishing and PR. He expressed however his belief and faith that both, journalism and communication could be combined and reconciled in EUSJA.
This opinion was reinforced by another statement, in which a former president hailed EUSJA as a tolerant bottom-up organization, a true umbrella which molded a whole array of cultural differences in Europe and gave them one voice.
The representative of an association in Southern Europe with more than one hundred members stated that only one third are active, many of which engage in PR.
To set off the adverse developments in science journalism a former EUSJA president suggested that EUSJA should provide more solid training. This could prevent the step of many colleagues into PR.
Right, sustained another delegate, trying to re-focus: If EUSJA wanted to be an umbrella, it must provide a wide and robust roof, but for both, communicators and science journalists, however strongly emphasize the journalistic branch and contribute to its survival with in-depth trainings.
Another delegate regretted that many colleagues are double-faced, call themselves science journalists, but produce pure PR without recognizing, realizing or even not knowing the difference.
Increasing dependence on politics and increasing propaganda in the public media was the main concern of a delegate coming from a large Eastern country.
In account of these detrimental developments a colleague made a pledge for the dissemination of new survival skills (such as entrepreneurial science journalism).
All this made one delegate muse whether there is enough space in Europe to found a second umbrella organization which is solely dedicated to foster a culture of pure science journalism.
The last speaker stated that science journalism has altogether disappeared in his very well-to-do Nordic country, that 90 percent of the respective journalistic content relied on one single source and that the nation was rolled over by big interests.
Formula against ailing science journalism: EUSJA must provide a wide roof for many cultures, definitions, applications (c) Antonio Calvo
In the discussion of these statements it was expressed that the testimonials show that the profession, indeed, is under great pressure. One discussant proposed to make these testimonials the foundation of future EUSJA work and to derive proper strategy from this. Another one would like to take these testimonials to Brussels and demand urgent action, such as funds to create a new culture and rescue a severely ailing science journalism. As one participant concluded, condensing the statements to three points:
* We have to make science journalism relevant again,
** keep up our professional skills, *** proliferate our ethical engagement.
