Wazzup Pilipinas!?
Much of the world’s science never reaches the public eye. Countless discoveries remain buried in journals, behind paywalls, or lost in technical jargon—while the challenges of climate change, health inequity, and technological disruption demand urgent, accessible communication. As journalists, we have the responsibility not only to expose problems but to amplify the responses and solutions that science offers.
This proposal argues that science journalism must evolve from a reactive model—reporting crises, scandals, or breakthroughs in isolation—to a proactive model that frames science as part of the solution ecosystem. By combining investigative rigor with solutions journalism, we can help societies bridge knowledge gaps, counter misinformation, and inspire action.
Key Questions
What happens to science that remains invisible to the public, and how do we bring it into the mainstream conversation?
How can journalists highlight not just the “what” of scientific discovery but also the “so what” and “now what”?
How can solutions-oriented science journalism empower policymakers, communities, and ordinary citizens to act on knowledge rather than be overwhelmed by problems?
Proposed Contribution
I propose to deliver a 30-minute session (talk + interactive discussion) that explores practical frameworks and strategies for making science solutions journalism impactful in a fragmented world. This includes:
Case Studies: Stories from Asia and beyond where science reporting shifted from problem-centric to solution-centric framing (e.g., renewable energy innovations in rural communities, low-cost health diagnostics, and AI in disaster resilience).
Techniques: How to translate technical research into narratives that resonate with audiences—while maintaining accuracy.
Challenges: Navigating misinformation, political polarization, and public distrust in science.
Recommendations: A roadmap for journalists, researchers, and communicators to collaborate in making science not just visible but actionable.
Why This Matters
In a world fragmented by misinformation, ideological divides, and uneven access to resources, science journalism has the power to act as a bridge. By shifting focus toward solutions, journalists can illuminate pathways forward, give hope, and foster trust between science and society.
This contribution aligns with SJAI’s 2025 theme by offering both conceptual frameworks and practical tools to elevate the visibility and relevance of science in public discourse.
Opening (2–3 minutes)
Good morning everyone.
Let me begin with a question:
What happens to science that remains invisible?
When discoveries stay locked in journals, hidden behind paywalls, or buried in jargon, the public never sees them. Policymakers never act on them. Communities never benefit from them. And in that silence, something else grows: misinformation, distrust, and missed opportunities for change.
This is the paradox we live in today. We are in the most scientifically advanced era of human history—yet much of that science is invisible to the people who need it most.
Section 1: The Problem of Invisible Science (5 minutes)
Let’s be honest: traditional science journalism often focuses on either crisis or breakthrough. We write about melting ice caps, viral outbreaks, corruption in public health spending—or we celebrate a Nobel Prize discovery or a rocket launch.
But what about the research that falls in between?
The quiet progress of scientists developing low-cost diagnostics in small labs.
The community-driven projects turning plastic waste into construction material.
The climate scientists working with farmers to improve local food resilience.
These stories are not invisible because they lack value. They’re invisible because they don’t fit neatly into our problem-obsessed news cycle.
And invisibility has consequences:
It widens the knowledge gap between scientists and the public.
It gives more room for misinformation to thrive.
It reinforces the narrative that science is distant, elitist, and irrelevant to daily life.
Section 2: A Shift Toward Solutions (7 minutes)
But here’s the good news: journalism doesn’t have to be a mirror of problems. It can be a window to solutions.
Solutions journalism asks:
Not just “What’s wrong?” but also “What’s working?”
Not just “Who’s to blame?” but also “Who’s responding, and how?”
Let me share three examples:
Renewable Energy in Rural Asia
Instead of covering only the energy crisis, journalists highlighted how microgrids powered by solar energy were transforming rural communities. That coverage attracted policymakers’ attention—and funding followed.
Affordable Diagnostics in Public Health
In India and the Philippines, journalists who reported on low-cost tuberculosis and diabetes test kits didn’t stop at describing the disease burden. They emphasized how these innovations were saving lives in resource-poor settings. That reporting influenced NGOs and hospitals to adopt the solutions faster.
AI in Disaster Resilience
After typhoons and earthquakes, most stories focus on devastation. But when coverage highlights how artificial intelligence helps forecast risks and save communities, it shifts the narrative from despair to preparedness.
In all three cases, journalism didn’t just inform. It inspired action.
Section 3: Tools and Techniques (5 minutes)
So, how do we make science solutions journalism work in practice?
Here are three techniques I’ve found effective:
Translate without Diluting
Strip away the jargon, but never sacrifice accuracy. Instead of saying “CRISPR-based gene-editing diagnostics,” say “a genetic test that can spot disease faster and cheaper than current hospital methods.”
Frame Around Impact
Every story should answer not just what is happening, but why it matters now. Who benefits? How scalable is this solution? What obstacles remain?
Include Community Voices
Science stories often privilege the lab coat. But real trust builds when we also hear from the farmer, the patient, the student who experiences the impact of innovation firsthand.
Section 4: Challenges and Opportunities (5 minutes)
Of course, this is not easy work.
We battle misinformation spreading faster than any peer-reviewed study.
We face political polarization, where science gets weaponized.
And often, scientists themselves are wary of speaking to journalists, fearing misrepresentation.
But within these challenges lies opportunity. Every fragmented conversation is a chance for us to rebuild trust. Every invisible discovery is a chance for us to make it visible—relevant, engaging, and actionable.
Section 5: Call to Action (3 minutes)
So I return to the question: What happens to science that remains invisible?
It gets forgotten. It gets misused. Or worse, it never reaches the people who could have benefited from it.
But when we bring science out of the shadows—when we report not just the problems, but the responses—journalism becomes more than a record. It becomes a catalyst.
As journalists, communicators, and researchers, we are not just storytellers. We are bridge-builders. We connect discovery to society. We turn knowledge into action. And in a fragmented world, that may be the most powerful role we can play.
Closing (2 minutes)
Thank you. I look forward to hearing your thoughts—and learning how together we can make invisible science visible, not just for headlines, but for humanity.
Timing: This script runs about 25 minutes, leaving 15 minutes for Q&A, perfectly matching the 40-minute session format.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment