Science journalist: "cheerleader or watchdog"? A conversation with Fabio Turone

Fabio Turone is a science journalist and researcher at the Center for Ethics in Science and Journalism, who in 2023 won a 1.5 million grant from the European Research Council with the FRONTIERS consortium. The project has established and is managing a program of residencies for science journalists in research institutions across Europe, promoting excellence and responsible reporting while affirming the fundamental importance of defending the independence of grantees.

Fabio Turone

What is CESJ? And what is the connection between ethics and science journalism?

The Center for Ethics in Science and Journalism is a non-profit research group that we describe as an "umbrella organization" because we are a flexible group of science journalists and science communication experts of various backgrounds, united by a shared interest in research on science journalism. Often, this interest goes hand in hand with ethical reflection on science journalism and on the aspects of science that science journalism investigates. The connection lies in having a responsible approach to the world of research, so responsible journalism also means understanding ethical aspects and acting accordingly.

Daniela Ovadia and I founded CESJ in 2016 in Milan after having some not entirely satisfactory experiences as individual researchers: we had taken part in some European projects with the perception of being somewhat "second-class citizens," often relegated to the dissemination and communication component only. So we thought of trying to create an entity through which we could aim to become partners in proposals rather than being involved only at the end of projects designed by others; in other words, to try to establish ourselves as a think tank.

How did the idea of participating in the ERC call, which then led to the FRONTIERS project, come about?

With CESJ, we put together a consortium to participate in a call of the European Research Council, the first explicitly aimed at independent science journalism, and we managed to assert within the consortium our strong identity as practitioners (thus belonging to the professional community targeted by the call) and researchers in the field of ethics.

In setting up a pan-European program of science journalists in residence, we had to imagine and anticipate all possible moments of more or less marked disagreement or even conflict between the journalists and the hosting institutions. Therefore, we wanted to make it clear from the start that host institutions benefit only indirectly from having a journalist in residence because there is no expectation that articles be produced either in general on the research being carried out or specifically about the host institution. Since the first draft, we have made efforts to make sure that the project would serve and support science journalists and protect their independence as a way to serve society at large.

So from the very beginning, we tried to anticipate and, as much as possible, mitigate the risk of clashes by ensuring that the journalist was also accepted in their role as a "watchdog" and not just as a "cheerleader" (as a 2009 Nature editorial put it). Science journalists are often a bit of a cheerleader because they are passionate and find stories that are beautiful, interesting, and important for their investigation and for the tangible results they can bring to society. However, quite often, they are perceived only in this role, while they also have the social function of watchdogs.

Can you tell us more about this residency program for journalists who want to experience a period in a research institution?

A significant portion of the budget, about 600,000 €, is allocated to funds for journalists who adjudicate the grant with their proposal. As CESJ, we handle both the "management machinery" by defining the engagement rules (we prepared all the documentation to clarify what is expected from the journalist applying and then from the resident journalist once selected for a position) and the ethical aspects and best practices.

Our role could be mistaken for a "travel agency," but in reality, we have allocated most of the money to a strong research framework to investigate what has been done so far, how, and with what awareness. Therefore, we planned many interviews with participants in similar projects worldwide, both scientists and journalists, and a series of surveys before, during, and after to gather as much qualitative and quantitative data as possible for analysis.

Compared to other projects, which are typically organized by a specific institution to host one or more journalists internally, we are in the position of having all the grantees spread across Europe. We would have loved to hold many in-person meetings, but given the limited budget, we ended up with four in-person meetings combined with training activities and peer-to-peer discussions on ethical issues and frontier science. Frontier science is the "dark matter" that the ERC addresses and which, from a communication perspective, has some important specificities. Frontier Science has elusive characteristics that can easily lead either to excessive enthusiasm or to considering the investments unjustified since it is not applied knowledge (the so-called "high-risk, high reward").

How many of these four planned calls have already been held? 

Earlier this year, we opened the third call; the first one was launched at the end of 2023, and the residencies took place in 2024. Then, the second call was opened in 2024, with residencies currently underway; both were open to people of all ages.

We received 33 applications in the first call, from which we selected seven journalists, all with considerable experience because there were no fundable projects among younger candidates. In the second call, we received 47 applications and selected 10 journalists, including 2 early-career professionals. Now, the third call is open, which (precisely because we funded few young journalists in the first two) is reserved for people in early careers, meaning those with a maximum of 5 years of experience as journalists; the deadline to apply is May 6.

The fourth and final call, which will again be open to all career stages, is expected to open in the last quarter of 2025.

So, there is no age limit, but is it based on the career stage? How do you assess that?

One problem is that there is no specific official certification for this element, so there can be ambiguity. In our case, it is a matter of self-certification by the grantee, and it is not always easy to determine whether you are within the first 5 years of your career, between 6 and 9 years, or beyond 10 years…

So, we suggest calculating from the first article published and professionally paid as a journalist, not as a communicator or in another role. However, we are aware that science communication and science journalism activities often coexist in the same person. Therefore, the criterion we have indicated is to demonstrate that one carries out journalistic activities and is considered a journalist in their professional context, as this can vary greatly from country to country. Since letters of recommendation can be submitted, if someone has a stronger background in one area compared to another, the recommendation letter can be useful to clarify the picture.

Have you already started to assess the residencies that have been carried out so far? Did you spot any critical issues?

One of the critical elements is related to the requirement in the call to consider aspects of diversity, both with respect to gender and geography. Regarding gender, we have had roughly a balance in the submitted proposals, so it was fairly easy to find a good balance among the funded candidates, and overall, we are very satisfied.

We also decided from the start that no more than two grantees per cohort can go to the same country: in our database, there are currently about 80-90 host institutions that have expressed their willingness to host fellows, but certain countries are more represented (such as Spain or Germany). So once we evaluated which projects were potentially fundable, we selected those with the highest scores, and we had to discard excellent proposals because there were already two with higher scores in the same country.

The same applies to the nationality of the candidate (no more than two per call from the same country) because there are countries where journalists traditionally have more familiarity with writing project proposals or submitting funding applications, so the idea was not to exacerbate a problem also known as the "Matthew effect".

Furthermore, for each call, there cannot be more than one winner going to the same institution, so it is legitimate for a host institution to offer availability to multiple candidates, but in the best-case scenario, they will have only one grantee per fellowship cycle.

Do you think there is room to improve collaboration between journalists and scientific institutions? Especially in terms of the perception of the mutual benefits that can result...

I have the impression that in the world of science journalism, a residency opportunity is felt in a very homogeneous way: maybe some journalists think they have no chance to have such an experience, but I believe that almost everyone immediately recognizes its great value. Because it allows you to focus on a project and step away from the logic of just rushing and producing; for many, it is precisely the moment to try to realize an idea they have had in mind for a long time but never managed to prioritize.

In the research world, this kind of experience under our conditions (with the independence of the science journalist as a primary principle) is still a "mysterious object" for many. We perceive that many institutions are very eager to participate even with this constraint, and some don't even see it as a constraint, but there is a lot of variability. Therefore, we make sure to have it put in writing that there is a risk of potential friction between scientists and journalists. After that, it sometimes happens that some of our journalist fellows, in their autonomy and independence, are less eager to challenge power and much more ready to accept the scientist's view than I expected.

I had a one-year experience as a Knight Fellow at MIT, and I am convinced that these can be transformative experiences. They allow you to develop the tools to then make a professional leap forward and deal with things you would never have thought of.

What happens if friction arises between the host institution (or a scientist) and the science journalist? For example, could there also be the fear of 'if we argue, they won't let me in any more'?

It is the worst-case scenario, but in a hypothetical situation like this, the consortium has the formally recognized role of arbitrator, and if needed, we can also escalate from the individual researcher up to the hierarchies of the host institution. It is also in their interest to address the critical situation in the most transparent and satisfactory way possible because clashing with the journalist is the worst thing they can do.

Our goal is to establish a healthy alliance in the name of ethics and a responsible approach to science communication and, more generally, to the storytelling of what happens inside research institutions. This project's very purpose is to help researchers see their work through external eyes that respond to different logic. That said, our host institutions are probably already virtuous, so it will be difficult for such a case to occur, although you never know. And even if it does happen, it is very likely that the response will not be to hide the problem but rather to open a frank and transparent discussion.