ABSW News

Martin’s Update

We are nearing the end of perhaps the ABSW’s most memorable year since it was set up in 1947. This to bring you up to date after our board meeting of November 24.

The ABSW is delighted to announce a new Award that will form part of our annual ABSW Science Writers Awards for Great Britain and Ireland.
 
The Dr Katharine Giles Award: to support media training for scientists 
 

The Dr Katharine Giles Award aims to improve scientists’ media skills, encouraging scientists to speak to journalists and in so doing improve science reporting within the UK.

Dr Katharine Giles

Dr Katharine Giles was a NERC Research Fellow and Lecturer working at the Centre for Polar Observation and Measurement (CPOM) at UCL.   Her research, until her death in an accident in 2013, led to a greater understanding of the complex interactions between sea ice cover, wind patterns and ocean circulation.
 
Katharine was passionate about her research and about communicating science to the public, particularly to young people.  She was a co-author and presenter of the 2006 IEE Faraday Lecture “Emission Impossible – Can Technology Save the Planet” and she had the benefit of media training early in her research career as part of the Faraday Lecture preparation.   It is appropriate that the fund set up in her name should help other scientists communicate their science to the public by improving their skills through good quality training.
 
How the Award Works
 
The ABSW Awards run annually with a number of different categories.   Mostly the applicants and winners of awards are journalists; however, two particular categories do attract scientists as entrants and potential winners:
 
Science blog award supported by Good Thinking
Best student science blog
 
The Dr Katharine Giles Award will enable the winners of these awards to undertake a one day media skills training course run by the Royal Society.  The fund will only be available for scientists who are not professional journalists, if the winner of either category is a professional journalist or writer then the fund will be offered to runners-up who meet the criteria.
 
Winners of the awards will be contacted in order to make arrangements for them to undertake the media skills course run by the Royal Society.   There is no obligation for winners to undertake the course.
 
Although this is a new Award the offer of media training has already been made to the winners of the 2015 Awards and the winners of the science blog award supported by Good Thinking, and best student science blog award, will undertake the media skills course run by the Royal Society next year.
 
The ABSW would like to thank the mother of Dr Katharine Giles, Dorrie Giles for making this Award possible.
The ABSW has now received three formal complaints under its ‘Professional Conduct’ clause in the standing orders (standing order 16).
 
Before outlining the actions taken by the Board in response to these complaints the Board would like to provide some context to this unprecedented situation.
 
As stated on our website, the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) exists to help those who write about science and technology, and to improve the standard of science journalism in the UK. We are an association of science writers, journalists, broadcasters and science-based communications professionals.
 
Founded in 1947, the ABSW has provided science journalists with networking, training, gossip, opportunities and jobs for over 60 years. We aim to promote the highest standards of journalism and writing by encouraging flair and bravery. We also hope to foster a mutually supportive community and to provide an environment for new ideas to develop and flourish. 
 
Through debates and events, our discussion group and our science writing awards we help to create links between science writers, their subjects and markets.
 
The ABSW is neither a professional body, nor a trade union and does not see its primary role as taking action against our members with regards to their daily work as writers, journalists or broadcasters.  However our standing orders do allow for a complaints procedure, the relevant standing order 16 reads as follows:
 
Professional Conduct
 
16. Members of the Association are expected to observe the highest professional standards. Wilful or frequent misrepresentation or inaccuracy, wilful breach of confidence, or behaviour in any way prejudicial to the interest of the public in accurate scientific reporting, or of the professional interests of the membership of the Association, shall be considered in breach of these standards.
 
A member against whom a formal complaint of infringement of this rule is laid shall be invited to meet the Executive Board, which will meet with at least five members present. A copy of the written complaint shall be communicated to the respondent at least three weeks before the hearing. An adequate record shall be kept of the hearing. The Executive Board has the power to warn, suspend or expel the member complained against. A written statement of the reasons for any suspension or expulsion shall be made to members of the Association at or before the next AGM of the Association.
 
A formal complaint must be in writing and duly signed by the complainant. If the complaint originates from within the Association, it shall be signed by not fewer than three members.
 
The ABSW has no other means by which to deal with complaints, there is no ‘informal’ procedure and The Board should not and cannot take action against any of our members without there being a formal complaint brought under this clause.  It would be entirely inappropriate for the Board to decide to initiate some kind of enquiry into a member in any other way other than through the procedure as outlined in our standing orders.   The Board hopes that all members consider how they would like to be treated if subject to complaint and that they would expect the Board to adhere to the procedures outlined in our standing orders.
 
As the ABSW has no previous experience of any complaint being brought against a member The Board has had to consider how this standing order works in practice.  After considerable discussion the Board considers the following as an appropriate way by which to implement the complaints procedure.
 
The Board considers that normally a complaint would be received by the ABSW and that this complaint would not be made public until both the Board and the subject of the complaint had been notified.   Clearly a complaint could be seriously prejudicial to a member of the ABSW and to publish it without any recourse to rebuttal by the subject of the complaint would be wrong.  The Board would then consider the complaint requesting further details from the subject of the complaint where necessary in order to decide if the complaint warrants further action under standing order 16.   The Board does not believe that any complaint received should automatically trigger action under standing order 16, each complaint must be considered on its merit. The Board hopes that members will understand the potential serious consequences for any member who is taken through the formal process of standing order 16.  If the complaint is not taken forward then it would be for the Board and the subject of the complaint to decide if they wished the matter to be made public.   If the complaint is taken forward through the formal processes of standing order 16 then the standing orders make it quite clear that:
 
An adequate record shall be kept of the hearing. The Executive Board has the power to warn, suspend or expel the member complained against. A written statement of the reasons for any suspension or expulsion shall be made to members of the Association at or before the next AGM of the Association. 
 
If the Board decides to take no action at this stage again it would be for the Board and the subject of the complaint to decide what details are made public.
 
The Board considers the above process to be the most practical, fair and appropriate way to deal with complaints regarding its members both in terms of taking the complaint seriously and in terms of its duty of care to its members.
 
However in the case of the three complaints received by the Board these have already been made public by the complainant:
 
 
 
So in the case of these three complaints the Board can no longer adhere to the processes it would consider practical, fair and appropriate as outlined above.
 
The complaints received by the Board are as follows:
 
Complaint by Louise Mensch (non-member) against Connie St Louis, ABSW full member and Board member
 
Complaint by Louise Mensch (non-member) against Martin Ince, ABSW full member, President and Board member
 
Complaint by Louise Mensch (non-member) against Bob Ward ABSW associate member, and co-opted Board member 
 
All three complaints relate in some way to the reporting of comments made by Sir Tim Hunt. 
 
All three individuals have been informed of the complaints against them and are aware of the content of the complaints.
 
The Board met to consider all three complaints with a view to deciding if further action was warranted under standing order 16.   
 
Board member Connie St Louis did not take part in this meeting of the Board and Board members Bob Ward and Martin Ince took no part in the discussion of the complaints relating to them.
 
Five members of the Board felt that they had a conflict of interest and so recused themselves from participating in the consideration of the formal complaint against Connie St Louis. In addition, Bob Ward indicated that he did not wish to participate in any potential process under Standing Order 16 about the professional conduct of an ABSW member as he is an Associate Member of the ABSW and is not a journalist. It was agreed that the three remaining Board members would consider the complaint and decide whether it warranted being taken forward to a hearing as described in standing order 16. Should that be the case, those three board members would then decide who to co-opt from the ABSW membership, taking into account their experience and conflicts of interest, to make up a committee of five individuals minimum (as required in standing order 16).
 
Connie St Louis was informed of this decision.
 
The remaining Board members considered the complaint against Connie St Louis separately and the result is reported later in this statement.
 
In the case of the complaints against Bob Ward and Martin Ince these were considered by the Board (with Martin Ince and Bob Ward not present) as the members present did not feel clear conflicts of interest in making a decision on whether the complaints should be taken forward.
 
Complaint against Martin Ince:
 
The Board considered that complaint against Martin Ince was incoherent and relied on spurious distinctions.  The complaint was not about his ‘professional writing’ but about statements made on behalf of the Board and agreed by the Board.  The Board’s statement regarding Tim Hunt not contesting Connie St Louis’ reporting related to the accuracy of the original tweet, not to any differences in opinion on context or intent.
 
The Board did not consider this complaint needed further action under standing order 16.
 
Complaint against Bob Ward:
 
With regard to the complaint against Bob Ward it was considered this related to tweeting in a private capacity not to reporting in any professional capacity.  The Board considered that the tweets referred to in the complaint were made due to him being a co-opted member of the Board i.e.: asking Louise Mensch to email him direct and referencing emails to him as a Board member. It was considered that Bob Ward was doing this in the public interest i.e.: for clarity around ABSW procedures and processes.  (At the time there was considerable misinformation around whether or not the Board had in fact received an official complaint and the process by which to make a complaint). It was considered that the tweets in question were part of a conversation rather than a report and did not prejudice the professional standards of the ABSW. 
 
The Board concluded that the substance of the complaint against Bob Ward was misplaced and that no further action was needed under standing order 16.
 
Bob Ward and Martin Ince have been informed of the decision of the Board regarding these complaints.
 
Those Board members who had not recused themselves from participating in the consideration of the formal complaint against Connie St Louis examined the complaint against her separately.  The outcome is reported here:
 
The Board members considering the complaint (referred to in this statement as the ‘Board subgroup’ or ‘subgroup’) would like to point out that the ABSW is not watchdog for science journalism. The purpose of standing order 16 is to provide a mechanism for the ABSW to uphold professional standards among its members and no more. 
Also, standing order 16 cannot and should not function as a primary means for complaining about the substance of a member's journalism or professional conduct. Rather, the ABSW expects that any serious complaint about a member's journalism or conduct would have already been directed to the relevant media, regulator or law enforcement. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the ABSW assumes its members have complied with reasonable professional standards.
 
Standing order 16 also does not call for an 'investigation', which is what parts of the complaint invites the Board to do, and the Board reserves the right to look into whether the complaint warrants an action under standing order 16. The ABSW must treat its members and their professional interest and reputation with due care and consideration. 
The Board subgroup has decided that it is not minded to begin any action under standing order 16 for the following reasons:
 
1. Many of the points the complainant raises do not fit the subgroup’s view of "wilful or repeated" misrepresentation.
 
2.       The complainant does not offer clear evidence that Connie St Louis has done what the complainant accuses her of.  Among other things, the complainant draws conclusions from audio recordings that we do not deem to be decisive; and offers quotes that appear to tell against St Louis without any objective evidence to back them up. The Board subgroup do not consider this evidence sufficient to show that St Louis's has behaved in a way that violates the standards set out in standing order 16.
 
The Board subgroup also considers this complaint to be vexatious and submitted with the goal of smearing an individual rather than with a constructive goal of upholding journalistic quality. The Board subgroup says this because:
 
1. The complaint includes evidence and quotations used selectively. For instance, the complainant asserts that no other witnesses agree with St Louis's version of the start of Sir Tim's remarks when this is not the case. Indeed, many other eyewitnesses appear to do so, as evidenced in a recent article: https://medium.com/@danwaddell/saving-tim-hunt-97db23c6ee93 
 
2.      The complainant has brought up matters that would most sensibly be addressed first and foremost through other channels. For instance, if the complainant considers the Today programme to be inaccurate a complaint to the BBC would be the obvious and sensible first step. Since the original reports have not been retracted in the media, the subgroup sees no reason to doubt their accuracy. Likewise, matters concerning St Louis' CV are not about journalistic standards. Rather they are matters for her employer - and indeed City University appears to be satisfied with her conduct. The subgroup has no reason to believe otherwise and it would not be appropriate for the ABSW to comment on this matter further.
 
The Board subgroup would also like to make it clear that this decision not to uphold the complaint should not be wrongly interpreted as a judgment either way on any of the individual points. Rather, the Board subgroup are saying that they have no credible evidence that Ms St Louis misrepresented anything, and so are not minded to begin any formal procedure under standing order 16.
 
Lastly, we would like to reaffirm the ABSW’s support for any member to report on controversial and politically sensitive issues in a free manner and without fear of reprisals, internet trolling or character assassinations.
 
 
On June 30, 2015 the Board of the Association of British Science Writers issued a statement concerning Connie St Louis, a member of the ABSW and its Board. The statement was published in response to personal attacks on Ms St Louis, including an article in the ‘Daily Mail’ on 27 June and associated online comments. Ms St Louis has been the subject of personal attacks, bigoted insults and abuse as a result of her reporting of remarks by Sir Tim Hunt at a lunch event on ‘Women in Science’ at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 8 June in Seoul. 
 
As its timing suggests, the Board’s statement was intended to convey its support for Connie St Louis against the abuse she has received and against attempts to discredit her professionally. Our statement was not a specific endorsement of Ms St Louis’s reporting of Sir Tim’s comments. However, this clarification should not be wrongly interpreted as an indication that the Board has any specific concerns about Ms St Louis’s reporting or professional conduct. All of our members are assumed to comply with the Standing Orders of the ABSW, including Standing Order 16 on professional conduct.
 
Sir Colin Blakemore, the former Honorary President of the ABSW, has asked the Board to make clear that he condemns the abuse to which Connie St Louis has been subjected, and that the ABSW Board’s previous statement regarding his resignation should not be misinterpreted as indicating otherwise. The Board is happy to do so with this statement.
 
There have been claims that the ABSW Board has refused to investigate complaints about the professional conduct of Ms St Louis. These allegations are incorrect. The ABSW Board has a legal duty to uphold the Standing Orders of ABSW Ltd. However, as of 21 October 2015, the Board has not received any formal complaints against Ms St Louis. The Board is unable to initiate action under Standing Order 16 unless it receives a formal complaint.
 
Standing Order 16 states:
 
Professional Conduct
 
16. Members of the Association are expected to observe the highest professional standards. Wilful or frequent misrepresentation or inaccuracy, wilful breach of confidence, or behaviour in any way prejudicial to the interest of the public in accurate scientific reporting, or of the professional interests of the membership of the Association, shall be considered in breach of these standards.
 
A member against whom a formal complaint of infringement of this rule is laid shall be invited to meet the Executive Board, which will meet with at least five members present. A copy of the written complaint shall be communicated to the respondent at least three weeks before the hearing. An adequate record shall be kept of the hearing. The Executive Board has the power to warn, suspend or expel the member complained against. A written statement of the reasons for any suspension or expulsion shall be made to members of the Association at or before the next AGM of the Association.
A formal complaint must be in writing and duly signed by the complainant. If the complaint originates from within the Association, it shall be signed by not fewer than three members.
 
The ABSW would like to clarify that it is a Company Limited by Guarantee. This means that it has no share capital and pays no dividends. This is a standard form of organisation for UK bodies which exist for the public good rather than for profit. It pays no fees to its directors.
 
Our Standing Orders state:
 
Executive Board 3. The ABSW shall be managed by an Executive Board comprising a President , Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, who shall all be directors of the company, and a European Representative (who may be the President), plus up to seven other members elected at the AGM, and up to four co-opted members appointed under Standing Order 8.
 
Furthermore our Articles state:
 
Methods of appointing directors 17. – (1) Any member of the Association, who is willing to act as a director, and is permitted by law to do so, may be appointed to be a director– (a) by ordinary resolution at a General Meeting, or (b) by a decision of the directors both to fill a casual vacancy and to provide expertise not otherwise available
 
As is required by Companies House, we make an annual return listing our Directors.   We also update Companies House when Directors cease to serve or are appointed.   All these details are freely available through our listing with Companies House.
 
Our current Directors are:
 
Martin Ince (President)
Mico Tatalovic (Vice-President)
Victoria Parsons (Treasurer)
Wendy Grossman (Board member)
Connie St Louis (European Representative)

As stated in our previous post we have accepted with regret Sir Colin Blakemore’s resignation as honorary president of the ABSW, with thanks for his support and assistance over the years.  

A statement from the honorary president was requested by the ABSW board.

In the light of the Observer article of October 11, the board of the ABSW wishes to point out that the Association’s Standing Order 16 (published on this web site under About Us, Memorandum, Articles and Standing Orders) sets out the procedure for making a complaint about a member of the ABSW. It has not received the notification needed to start a case under this process, which involves a formal complaint in writing, but will of course act upon any such complaint it may receive.

 

We have accepted with regret Sir Colin Blakemore’s resignation as honorary president of the ABSW, with thanks for his support and assistance over the years.  He has made it clear that he disagrees irreconcilably with the statement we issued in June about media attacks on our former president, Connie St Louis.

As anyone looking at this web site knows already, this relates to her reporting of remarks to the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations by Sir Tim Hunt at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul on June 8. Sir Tim has not disputed the accuracy of St Louis’s reporting and has apologised to the Federation for his comments. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, is on record as saying that Sir Tim’s comments were unacceptable.

The World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) of which the ABSW is a member has published their September Newsletter.

Download the Newsletter for all the latest news or access the newsletter via their website.

The WFSJ website has recently undergone a complete re-vamp so drop by to see all the resources and news available.

The Board of the ABSW gives its full support to former President and current Board member Connie St Louis, Director of the MA in Science Journalism at City University London.
 
Connie St Louis has been the subject of online abuse and of attempts to discredit her professionally, simply for pursuing a story that she thought correctly was interesting and important.
  
The comments tweeted by Connie St Louis highlight the issue of sexism in science and the frustration that many feel at the slow progress being made to address it.  The reaction has included the #distractinglysexy campaign which has drawn attention to women scientists as intelligent, funny and clever women and great career models.  
However, this positive development has been overtaken by a media furore directed at Connie for the everyday act of reporting a news story. As an organisation of science writers which fosters excellence in journalism, we are deeply disturbed by this behaviour.
 
The ABSW would like to see a healthy debate on the issue of sexism in science, and has commissioned research on sexism in science journalism. Its members recognise that they have a role to play in the way they portray women scientists.  
 
Journalists need to be free to carry out their jobs without fear of personal attack. The ABSW Board is proud to support Connie, as it will support any of its members who may find themselves subject to such abuse in future.
 
City University has now issued a statement, along with a statement from Connie St Louis:
 
 
Yesterday's blog by Professor Uta Frith, Chair of the Royal Society Diversity Committee, soundly refocuses attention on the issue of sexism in science:
 
 
UCL has also released a strong statement regarding its commitment to equality for women in science:
 
 
 

Winners Announced in the 2015 Science Journalism Awards – hat-trick for Ian Sample of The Guardian in news

The winners of the Association of British Science Writers’ Awards for Britain and Ireland 2015, supported by Janssen Research and Development were announced at an Awards Ceremony held in London tonight (Thursday 25 June 2015).   Ian Sample of the Guardian scored a hat-trick by winning in the news category for the third year in a row.

Best feature  

Ewen Callaway, Tales of the Hobbit, published in Nature, 22-10-2014

Best news item

Ian Sample, Revealed: 100 safety breaches at UK labs handling potentially deadly diseases, published inThe Guardian, 04-12-2014.

Best scripted/edited television programme or online video

Team Entry: Executive Producer: Jonathan Renouf. Producer Director: Nathan Williams. Presenter: Michael Mosley. Researcher: Shamini Bundell. Infested! Living with parasites, A BBC Science Production, London for BBC Four. First broadcast 19-02-2014

Highly commended as a short film: Team entry:Director/Editor:Charlotte Stoddart. Reporter/Narrator:Lizzie Gibney. Laniakea:  Our home supercluster, Nature.com andthe Nature Video Channel on YouTube. First broadcast 03-09-2014

The Royal Society Radio Prize (A prize for the best scripted/edited radio programme or podcast, supported by The Royal Society):

Team entry:Performer, Writer/researcher: Helen Keen. Writer/researcher:Miriam Underhill. Performer:Peter Serafinowicz. Producer:Gareth Edwards, It is Rocket Science (Life on Mars, Series 3 Episode 1), BBC Radio 4. First broadcast 02-04-2014

Best investigative journalism

Alexander Masters, A Plutocratic Proposal, published in Mosaic, the e-magazine for the Wellcome Trust, 27-10-2014

The NUJ Stephen White Award for best communication and reporting of science in a non science context.   This Award is made in memory of Stephen White a highly influential science communicator who died in 2010.   The Award is possible due to a donation from Stephen’s widow Elizabeth.

Team entry: Devised byJames Gallagher and Rachael Buchanan with additional reporting across BBC News, BBC Day of the Body Clock, published and broadcast on all BBC News platforms, 13-05-2014

Best newcomer

Maria Delaney, Freelance

Best student science blog

Matthew Warren, University of Oxford. Won’t somebody please think of the children? Technology and the adolescent brain, Neurobabble, 02-06-2014

Science blog award supported by Good Thinking

Kat Day, The Chronicle Flask,the Chronicle Flask

The IOP student science publication award supported by IOP Publishing and the Institute of Physics

Winner: Broadsheet, Imperial College – Editor-in-Chief: Ben Stockton, Sub Editors: Sophie Reid and Fiona Mashford

Runner Up: I, Science, Imperial College – Co-Editors in Chief: Jennifer Toes and Iona Twaddell and Magazine Editor: Kruti Shrotri

The winners of the first European Science Writer of the Year Award were announced earlier in June and both Tanja Rudez of Croatia and Jop de Vrieze of the Netherlands travelled to London to receive their Awards.

European Science Writer of the Year 2015

Winner: Tanja Rudez, science reporter at Jutarnji List daily, Croatia  – nominated by the Croatian Association of Science Journalists

Second: Jop De Vrieze, freelance journalist, The Netherlands – nominated by VWN (Dutch Association of Science Journalists)

Third: Ewen Callaway, senior reporter, Nature, UK – nominated by the Association of British Science Writers

The ABSW Science Writers’ Awards for Britain and Ireland 2015 attracted over 200 entries.  An independent panel of science journalists and science communicators judged the entries on originality, appeal to a broad audience, novelty of subject matter, likely impact, style, content, entertainment, balance and depth of reporting.

Award winners received a certificate and a small cash prize and enter the ABSW hall of fame that includes previous Award winners Sir David Attenborough, Sir John Maddox (Nature), and Judith Hann (BBC Tomorrow’s World).

Full details of the winners, those shortlisted, the rules and regulations for the awards, copies of articles where available, and a full list of judges can be found at http://www.absw.org.uk/jobs-awards/awards

Association of British Science Writers (ABSW)

Founded in 1947, the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) exists to help those who write about science, health and technology, and to improve the standard of science journalism in the UK. The ABSW is an association which includes science writers, journalists and broadcasters that promotes the highest standards of journalism and writing by encouraging investigation and creativity.   www.absw.org.uk @absw https://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-British-Science-Writers-ABSW/

Copies of the shortlisted articles/broadcasts are available on request and/or linked from the ABSW website where possible

About Janssen

At Janssen Research & Development, we are united and energized by one mission - to discover and develop innovative medicines that ease patient’s suffering, and solve the most important unmet medical needs of our time.

As one of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, our strategy is to identify the biggest unmet medical needs and match them with the best science, internal or external, to find solutions for patients worldwide. We leverage our world-class discovery and development expertise, and operational excellence, to bring innovative, effective treatments in five therapeutic areas:

• cardiovascular and metabolism

• immunology

• infectious diseases and vaccines

• neuroscience

• oncology

We think of the world as our laboratory and we look for innovation wherever it exists. This drives our relentless search for the best science, and our pursuit of collaborations and partnerships. We believe there are no limits to what science can do. And we never lose sight of those who rely most on our discoveries. www.janssenrnd.com

IOP Publishing

IOP Publishing provides publications through which leading-edge scientific research is distributed worldwide. 

Beyond our traditional journals programme, we make high-value scientific information easily accessible through an ever-evolving portfolio of books, community websites, magazines, conference proceedings and a multitude of electronic services.

IOP Publishing is central to the Institute of Physics, a not-for-profit society. Any financial surplus earned by IOP Publishing goes to support science through the activities of the Institute.

Go to ioppublishing.org  or follow us @IOPPublishing.

The Institute of Physics

The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society. We are a charitable organisation with a worldwide membership of more than 50,000, working together to advance physics education, research and application.

We engage with policymakers and the general public to develop awareness and understanding of the value of physics and, through IOP Publishing, we are world leaders in professional scientific communications.

In September 2013, we launched our first fundraising campaign. Our campaign, Opportunity Physics, offers you the chance to support the work that we do.

Visit us at www.iop.org or follow us on Twitter @physicsnews.

The Royal Society

The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The Society’s fundamental purpose, as it has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.

The Society’s strategic priorities emphasise its commitment to the highest quality science, to curiosity-driven research, and to the development and use of science for the benefit of society.

These priorities are:

1.       Promoting science and its benefits

2.       Recognising excellence in science

3.       Supporting outstanding science

4.       Providing scientific advice for policy

5.       Fostering international and global cooperation

6.       Education and public engagement

For further information please visit http://royalsociety.org Follow the Royal Society on Twitter at http://twitter.com/royalsociety or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/theroyalsociety

Good Thinking Society (http://goodthinkingsociety.org)

Good Thinking Society is a charity founded by Simon Singh, aimed at promoting science and challenging pseudoscience.  Its motto is: “Encouraging curious minds and promoting rational enquiry”.

Want to have your pitches or copy picked over by an experienced journalist? The ABSW's mentoring scheme could be for you. Aimed at early career science writers, the scheme entails a group of experienced editors looking over your story ideas or pitches, and helping to develop them further by providing constructive criticism and feedback. Think of it as a sneak-preview of professional science journalism. The scheme is is meant for members who have had little or no experience publishing their work professionally to hone their skills and make their first steps into publishing in professional media.
 
The scheme is only available to ABSW members. If you are already a  member sign in to access the scheme. If you are not a member, you could join to access this membership benefit.
 
If you have any queries about the scheme please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Member Login

Go to top