Dear Brenda,

you wrote the key word "popular publication". These are also necessary like the scientific papers because we cannot live in a totally closed and insulated world. We need public relation, money, recruitment. But we all should clearly distinguish these two kinds of publication.

The work satisfaction is the ultimate goal for a researcher. Media can help him or her to reflect the outcome of his or her work to be brought into light!!!

The "game" is usually played this way: There are persons who are allowed to do & publish research "at low volume" & for these, peer-reviewed journals are enough. On the other hand, there are persons who will do as the first type with the additional privilege of access to the media which, of course, will result in FAME. Usually, fame is made for specific persons & for particular aims. The media is not open for every one, as claimed. 

In my opinion, we need the media, magazines and any another way playing a role in the transfer of information to find out the scientific development for the purpose of follow-up and to what extent?

The game and goal of media is much different  from that of  scientific journals.  In scientific journals, the main goal is to acknowledge the work in the scientific community. This requires a peer review which generally satisfy the proud of the scientist. In media propaganda is more effective than real science. Though this may show good public relations  and makes more famous names, this will not create a real scientist. Most of the media scientists have a propaganda more than science.   

Dear Abduladhem Abdulkareem Ali,

thanks for your answer. Very interesting opinion.

mariano.

Media can give a wider publicity to the research and researcher. Otherwise peer reviewed journals have limited circulation to the researchers only. Media send it to the public, industry, other stakeholders.

Subhash is right. Media also bridge the ages.  UK scientists two days ago discovered that the Big Bang occurred more recently than was previously thought. In other words, the universe was younger than generally believed. I passed this news story to my grandsons, fascinated by astronomy in their preteens. Without media coverage, my grandsons would have been oblivious to this curious information.

Yes, Subhash and Nelson, I fully agree. Most of us are funded by the public. Consequently, we have the duty to inform the general population of our work and what it means for them. It's not about fame, but it's about dissemination of results, their impact and dangers.

The media will pick up topics that are easy to swallow and promising to selling well. Our job is to inform them on our work in an honestand comprehensible way.

Such journals as the 'Scientific American" are a link from academic to popular publications, and they are important.

The ultimate goal of any scientific research or innovation is to benefit the people who have the right to know the outcome of  research conducted at the cost of their hard earned money. Print or electronic media holding extensive reach to the general public is the effective medium to disseminate the research outcome among people. Publication in peer reviewed  journals is also important  for recognition of the work by scientific community, enrichment of scientific knowledge base/state of knowledge and furtherance/advancement  of work .

Usually media-staff concerns about impression of the viewers and not about scientific truth, so media is not a good guide for scientific research.

If publicity is an aim, than media play a major role. Otherwise, peer reviewed journals are the key resource for science and innovation! I may say that I have got some fine scientific news by means of media, while it triggered me to find a Journal and a paper!

Dear Brenda,

you wrote the key word "popular publication". These are also necessary like the scientific papers because we cannot live in a totally closed and insulated world. We need public relation, money, recruitment. But we all should clearly distinguish these two kinds of publication.

I agree with dear Professor Hanno Krieger that we have to distinguish between the 2 types of publications. Apart from the very few known magazines, the majority of them do not give exact science( except for quotes) when formulating an article & their main aim is to sell as much as possible. I think we all know the contradictions of the press at different times such as these bold titles (Coffee Can Harm Your Health; Coffee is Good for You; Coffee is Devastating for the Digestive System; Coffee Can Help in Treatment of Cancer...). I saw these titles & to this day, I am puzzled hoping that the question of this delicious drink is settled !

I agree with views of Dear Mario. Media coverage of scientific innovation and publication a peer reviewed journals  are two totally different things, The first is aimed at broad audience where scientific understanding is  poor and therefore must offer something understandable and often leave out things technically relevant, while in the second receipt if the scientific publication is something addressed both language is for content to specialists in the field.

Dear Brenda,

I didn´t misunderstand your statement. My response was just a confirmation of your last comment.

thanxs to all for your suggestion

Yes it can be in both.

Media is crucial especially when we need the citizens to solve problems highlighted by scientists (e.g. pollution/waste and consequences)

What would be the impact of science without media? Using inventions without knowing their origin and without knowing the long-term consequences of these inventions?

Media-driven public communication has the potential to exert a major influence on the social perception, assessment and acceptance of the S&T outcomes. The central issue is therefore the way findings/ innovations are presented in the news media greatly influence positive opinion and/or debatable issue among public as well as social, political, economic and scientific communities.

Both media and popular science publications are of crucial importance. Some reasons would be:

- We need states to finance fundamental science. In a democracy, every politician is dependent of public approval, so science must be popular and beloved if we want to get money.

- We make education, both for youth and for the general public audience.

- We make ideas popular, and new applications or new ideas will arize, also from people which are not specialists.

- In media and popular science publications results are filtered and only big achievements are discussed. In this way they reach good scientists which are not specialist in the narrow field of the new discovery. This cross interaction is in the interest of science in general.

"Science topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate and scientists clearly feel they should be in the arena...!" 

http://news.yahoo.com/most-scientists-think-active-public-debates-211135237.html

Scientific concepts, researches, and innovations are reached to public through media and so, media role/coverage is encouraging.

Otherwise, such publications in peer reviewed journals are limited to selective researchers/scientists/laboratories.

Without the good coverage by media, many stakeholders and society may remain unaware about these.

Yes dear Ljubomir,

we should be in the debate, but we must not confuse scientific and popular information and presentation. A very common example like many others, talk about nuclear power in publico and with scientists, you will immediately see the difference in reactions and the demand for changing style and content of your speech.

It is nice that public media could be used to improve people thoughts and minds, and bring them to be interested by science and innovation as well as the danger of bad usage of some ingredients from common goods derived from science and technology as electricity, gas, water, W.C, detergents, drugs, piles, etc.. or their bad mix.

Public media by disclosing scientific information could help people to develop their intelligence

Thanks to all