In a world increasingly defined by the intersection of scientific research, public perception, and digital media, Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations stands out as an essential scholarly and practical resource. Edited by Martin W. Bauer and Massimiano Bucchi, two respected figures in science communication studies, the book offers a comprehensive, international perspective on the evolving relationship between science journalism and science PR. It invites readers—journalists, scientists, scholars, and policymakers alike—to rethink how science is conveyed, mediated, and, increasingly, marketed in contemporary society.
Bridging Two Worlds
Published by Routledge in 2007, this volume is part of the Routledge Studies in Science, Technology and Society series. The editors structure the book into four parts, cleverly juxtaposing voices from journalism and public relations with global case studies that illuminate broader trends. The book’s subtitle, Science Communication between News and Public Relations, encapsulates its primary thesis: that the once-clear boundary between objective reporting and strategic communication has grown increasingly porous.
In their introduction, Bauer and Bucchi outline two major shifts:
- The increasing privatization of scientific research, where promotional logic begins to override journalistic neutrality;
- The adoption of corporate communication strategies by scientific institutions, with image management often taking precedence over transparency.
These tensions form the thematic core of the book.
Global, Historical, and Practitioner Perspectives
Part I explores the historical evolution of science reporting. Highlights include Jeff Hughes’s fascinating chapter, Insects or Neutrons?, detailing the struggles of J.G. Crowther, one of Britain’s first science correspondents, with newspaper editors resistant to covering “hard science” like atomic physics. Hughes illustrates the editorial preference for accessible content—like insects and dairy farming—over more abstract scientific breakthroughs, shedding light on early twentieth-century media values.
Similarly, Paola Govoni’s chapter on 19th-century Italy explores how the country’s uneven educational infrastructure and politicised use of science popularisation contributed to the decline of a once-promising science communication movement.
Part II moves to the frontline of practice, giving science journalists a chance to reflect candidly. Former Guardian science editor Tim Radford likens the journalist’s task to that of Scheherazade—“only good storytelling keeps them alive”. Luca Carra analyses how the birth of Dolly the sheep catalysed a wave of science stories in Italy, revealing that sex, hope, and moral disruption drive public engagement as much as scientific merit.
Part III focuses on science public relations, with Bob Ward’s case study of the Royal Society’s climate change campaign providing a striking example of proactive, strategic science communication. Another standout chapter by Winfried Göpfert warns of the growing power imbalance, as well-funded PR machines threaten to eclipse under-resourced science journalism—a concern echoed throughout the book.
International Commentary: Common Patterns, Local Differences
In Part IV, commentary chapters from countries like South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Australia, and the United States offer a broader comparative lens. These contributions explore whether the issues highlighted in European contexts—commodification, source dependency, and loss of critical reporting—are universal or context-specific. Sharon Dunwoody’s chapter on the U.S. emphasizes audience segmentation, while Toss Gascoigne (Australia) calls for better coordination between communicators.
What Critics Say
Online reception of the book has been sparse but largely positive. In a review for Science Communication, David M. Rubin praised the book’s “timely and important” focus on the tension between PR and journalism, calling it “a must-read for those teaching or studying science communication” (Rubin, 2008). The journal Public Understanding of Science also commended the book’s balanced structure and inclusion of practitioner perspectives.
However, some critics point to its limitations. As the editors themselves admit, the book focuses heavily on print media, leaving out the increasingly dominant roles of television and online platforms. Additionally, the case studies often remain focused on Europe and Latin America, with less depth in Asian or African contexts beyond surface commentary.
Conclusion: A Crucial, Still-Relevant Contribution
Nearly two decades after its publication, Journalism, Science and Society remains highly relevant. In an age where misinformation, branding, and spin challenge the very notion of objective science reporting, this book offers critical tools to assess and navigate these challenges.
It doesn’t pretend to offer final answers. Instead, it invites a reflective, comparative, and interdisciplinary approach to a dynamic field. For readers interested in the ethics, sociology, and strategy of science communication, Bauer and Bucchi’s edited volume is both a foundation and a catalyst.