The Guardian, Observer and the Wellcome Trust have launched a new prize for budding science writers. In an article on the Guardian’s website, journalist Alok Jha launches the prize and gives a few tips on how to get started in writing about science.

Introducing the award, Alok Hja says, “in summary, we’re looking for an 800-word article from non-professional writers suitable for publication on guardian.co.uk, in the Guardian or The Observer. There will be two prizes, one for professional scientists and another for everyone else.”

“As long as you’re not already a professional writer or journalist you can enter this competition. To encourage more people to discuss and think about science, we want to bring brilliant new writing to the attention of all our readers.”

Full information about how to enter is on the Wellcome Trust website. The closing date is 20 May and the prize will be awarded in October.

Should news be presented as a ‘view from nowhere’ or should science journalists bring in their own opinions when reporting science stories? That was the central topic of a debate last night at the Royal Institution, chaired by Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre. The panellists discussing the motion were Mark Henderson of the Times, Ceri Thomas, editor of the BBC R4 Today Programme, Steve Rayner, Professor of Science and Civilisation at Oxford University and Ed Yong, Information Manager at Cancer Research UK and a prominent communicator of science.

Mark Henderson viewed a science journalist’s job as absolutely to ’second guess what’s right’ and to be as accurate as possible when reporting. There’s a fundamental difference between balance and fairness, he said. Science journalists should strive to be fair, but lending equal weight to both sides of an argument when the evidence suggests otherwise is misleading. Mark suggested that having an opinion is helpful to good journalism, making reporters go the extra mile to research and find out the truth for themselves. As long as opinions are transparent they can be a force for good.

Ceri Thomas argued fundamentally against the idea that science journalists should take sides. This should happen no more than a political correspondent should take a side in favour of a particular political party, or a sports writer report in favour of a particular football team. Science doesn’t deserve special treatment. Yes, journalism should take the side of reason and evidence, and yes, this will often be in science’s favour, but scientists get it wrong if they think that reason and evidence are all that matters: emotional and irrational factors matter too, in reality, and so science needs to stand its ground in arguments with these. When news outlets such as the BBC give too much credence to the emotional/ irrational however, that’s when they are getting reporting wrong.

Steve Rayner made some very interesting points about how policy debates have been re-framed as debates about the quality of the science over the years. He highlighted climate change negotiations as a particular example, arguing that by 1992 climate change science, although flawed, provided evidence which was at least as strong as that which Governments use to justify making decisions on monetary and defence policy. Since then society has been debating the quality of the science but actually what we are really debating is how to move forward with difficult and differing policy options. It’s not the case that ‘more and better’ science will solve the seemingly intractable problem of how to tackle climate change, and actually, Steve argued, framing the solution to the problem in one particular way – via the Kyoto protocol – which he described as the result of ‘collusion’ by scientists and policy-makers – has prevented more innovative solutions being taken forward.

Ed Yong agreed largely with Mark Henderson, arguing that if a journalist didn’t provide analysis and context for their science report, someone else would – in the age of blogging and twitter, when anyone can have an opinion. It is the duty of journalists to state where the consenus lies. You can get a plurality of views without these necessarily having to be at extremes and at odds with one another. Overall, Ed argued, transparency and ‘taking sides with the truth’ were the most vital qualities in a piece of science journalism.

Amongst points raised through a very interesting discussion with the audience, Alok Jha, science writer with the Guardian, asked Mark whether it was in fact appropriate for science journalists to bring their opinions into their writing. This was fine if this was a writer trusted and known by the reader, but what if you were reading the work by someone you hadn’t come across before: how could you know whether their work was objective? Mark maintained that adding interpretation from the journalist could get the journalist, and the reader, closer to a nuanced understanding of the truth. Overall, Steve Rayner argued, we need to create a society where the public and policy-makers can make informed judgements themselves about science news, through general scientific literacy.

Mark Henderson is organising two more events in this series -one on genomics and one a post-Comprehensive Spending Review Q and A with David Willetts, Science Minister (26 October). See the RI website for details.

Take a look at the new environment blog, ‘Earth Watch’, maintained by the BBC website’s Environment Correspondent, Richard Black: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Tomorrow (30 August) sees the first conference dedicated to science blogging. ‘Science Blogging 2008: London’ will be held at the Royal Institution and is jointly organised by the RI, Nature Networks and DIUS.

The conference will bring together science bloggers worldwide to explore issues in science research, science communication, public engagement and education. Participants will explore whether blogging can contribute to scientific research and careers. Can blogs contribute to the public understanding of science? What can science bloggers do to maximise the impact of their blogs?

This is a great chance to meet others blogging about science and learn more about this growing area of science communication.

Find out more about the conference and register on the Science Blogging website.

Today sees the launch of National Science and Engineering Week 2008 (7- 16 March). This initiative, funded by DIUS and coordinated by the BA and the Engineering and Technology Board, is an opportunity for all ages to get involved in science and technology activities and to discover the excitement of science.

Ecology-related events taking place around the country include a conference on ‘Cutting Edge Research in Ecology and Conservation’, at the University of Exeter, and a one-day event at the University of Leicester on advances in understanding of the ecology and behaviour of dinosaurs.

There is an opportunity for the public to ask questions of scientists on anything, however perplexing or confusing, and scientists will then answer these on the ‘Big Questions’ message board, through the media or through events taking place around the country. Some of the UK’s most influential scientists and PM Gordon Brown have also posted questions which they would like other scientists to answer.

Contribute to a ‘Big Question’

The UK Research Councils and ‘Darwin 200′, a collection of organisations across the UK planning events and activities to celebrate Darwin’s 200th birthday in 2009, have today launched a new website which aims to connect Darwin’s work and evolutionary research with the public.

2009 marks both the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, ‘On the Origin of Species.’ In preparation, the new website will allow the public to contribute podcasts, vodcasts and pose questions to researchers about evolution. The aim is to find out what the public find fascinating, puzzling or difficult about Darwin’s work and evolutionary theory in a modern context. This will allow RCUK to gauge what the public would like to see as part of next year’s celebratory events.

Access the new website ‘Darwin Today: Celebrating Modern Evolutionary Research‘