Science Journalism in the Arab World:

The Quest for ‘Ilm’ and Truth 1st Edition

Abdullah Alhuntushi
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/science-journalism-in-the-arab-world-the-quest-for-ilm
-and-truth-1st-edition-abdullah-alhuntushi/
Palgrave Studies in Journalism and the
Global South

Series Editors
Bruce Mutsvairo
Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

Saba Bebawi
University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

Eddy Borges-Rey
Northwestern University Qatar, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar

This series focuses on cutting-edge developments in journalism in and

from the Global South and illuminates how journalism cultures and
practices have evolved from the era of colonization to contemporary
globalization. Bringing previously underrepresented research from the
Global South to the English speaking world, this series will focus on a
broad range of topics within journalism including pedagogy, ethics,
history of journalism, press freedom, theory, propaganda, gender, cross-
border collaboration and methodological issues. Despite the
geographical connotations of the term ‘Global South’ the series will not
be defined by geographical boundaries, as Western countries are home
to millions of immigrants and the contributions of immigrant
journalists will be covered.
Abdullah Alhuntushi and Jairo Lugo-Ocando

Science Journalism in the Arab World

The Quest for ‘Ilm’ and Truth
Abdullah Alhuntushi
Department of Media and Communication, King Khalid Military College,
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Jairo Lugo-Ocando
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

ISSN 2662-480X e-ISSN 2662-4818

Palgrave Studies in Journalism and the Global South
ISBN 978-3-031-14251-2 e-ISBN 978-3-031-14252-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14252-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover Illustration: PhotoStock-Israel / Alamy Stock Photo.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered

company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham,
Switzerland
To both of our mothers, who brought science into our lives
Contents
1 Introduction
2 An Account of Science Journalism in MENA
3 Science Journalism and Media Systems in MENA
4 Science News Cultures and Journalism Practice
5 Science Journalism and Professional Autonomy
6 News Sources and Access in Science
7 Gender and Science News in the Arab World
8 Data and Statistics in Science News Reporting in the Arab World
9 Science News Audiences in the Middle East
10 Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
List of Tables
Table 4.​1 Journalistic genre of the article

Table 4.​2 The main topic of the article (Alhuntushi &​Lugo-Ocando,

2020)

Table 4.​3 The main source of statistics (Alhuntushi &​Lugo-Ocando,

2020)

Table 6.​1 Science news producers

Table 6.​2 Types of science news cross-tabulated with the sources

Table 6.​3 Provenance

Table 6.​4 The numbers of sources, when mentioned

Table 6.​5 The type of science news and number of sources mentioned

Table 6.​6 Correlation between the numbers of sources

Table 7.​1 The main source and gender

Table 7.​2 Gender cross-tabulated by type of science news

Table 7.​3 Gender of the journalist cross-tabulation

Table 8.​1 Mathematics performance among 15-year-olds in some Arab

countries in 2015

Table 8.​2 Reliability of cited sources

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
A. Alhuntushi, J. Lugo-Ocando, Science Journalism in the Arab World, Palgrave Studies
in Journalism and the Global South
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14252-9_1

1. Introduction
Abdullah Alhuntushi1 and Jairo Lugo-Ocando2
(1) Department of Media and Communication, King Khalid Military
College, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(2) University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Jairo Lugo-Ocando
Email: jlugoocando@sharjah.ac.ae

For journalists all over the world, one of the most dramatic events in
the twenty-first century was reporting the world COVID-19 pandemic.
As the virus rapidly spread across all corners of the globe and took
almost everyone by surprise, it became increasingly evident how ill-
prepared our societies were to deal with these types of situations.
Millions across the globe were dying as the world desperately searched
for a vaccine while asking people to stay at home, self-isolate and wear
masks. Meanwhile, the economy was collapsing as the planet came to a
halt.
Governments deployed information campaigns as part of the efforts
to convince everyone to undertake precautionary measures. These
efforts became, in the end, a race to win the hearts and minds of people,
convincing citizens to change their lifestyles and accept what at times
seemed to many as draconian measures. This included informing the
public about approaches, policies and actions to be collectively
undertaken to reduce the speed of the contagion so as to avoid the
collapse of the public and private health systems, which were
overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people falling ill and rushing
into medical emergency rooms (Ghosh & Qadeer, 2020; Muwahed,
2020).
However, these communication efforts proved to be one of the
biggest challenges and, in some cases, an impossible task. Indeed, one
of the biggest surprises from that event was the way the government
responses to the crisis were politicalised and faced a backlash from
anti-vaccine and anti-mask movements from around the globe. Perhaps
the biggest paradox was the fact that liberal democracies with an
independent and free press which ought to be trusted in fact struggled
to be so and failed to convince large segments of their own populations
to embrace these responses and policies.
It was precisely in those political systems where information was
widely available and individuals had the right to choose sources and
responses where we mostly saw the spread of fake news and
disinformation (Carrion-Alvarez & Tijerina-Salina, 2020; Rodrigues &
Xu, 2020) as well as the embracement of conspiracy theories that led
some to even question the very existence of the virus (Shahsavari et al.,
2020; Stein et al., 2021). It came down to the fact that in many of these
countries large segments of the public simply neither trusted the
government nor the mainstream media.
These individuals fell into conspiracy theories that promoted the
idea that governments and corporations were colluding for world
domination and depopulation or that it was all a plot to implement a
form of corporate fascism (Stecula & Pickup, 2021; Stephens, 2020).
This was underpinned by irresponsible populist leaders who ignored
expert advice and recommendations provided by the world’s health
experts, all in pursuit of their own political agendas (Matthews, 2020;
Muwahed, 2020; O’Reilly, 2020). This war against scientific truth was
supported in turn by important segments of the right-wing news media
and a variety of voices on social media platforms, all of whom
disinformation campaigns that helped to radicalise groups of the public
and slow down the rates of vaccination and mask use.
At this point, one must ask why did so many ignore or distrust what
governments, international organisations and the mainstream media
had to say about the pandemic? As the dust settled, we came to
understand that there were many variables at play. For example, one of
the aspects that caused most damage during the emergency was the
fact that many in society did not really understand the nature of the
crisis or the science behind the virus and the responses to it (e.g., that
the world already had mRNA technology which facilitated the rapid
development of a vaccine). Conspiracy theories thrived from ignorance
as many were unable to grasp even the most basic concepts around
health while fewer understood how to assess risk in their own lives.
These shortcomings were not only a problem related to the Public
Understanding of Science (PUS) but one that was also deeply ingrained
in an increasingly mediatised and fragmented public sphere where
journalism as a political institution had lost ground to eclectic and
quasi-chimeric forms of participatory publishing—a form of citizen
journalism—that present, at times, fake news and conspiracy theories
as scientific truths (Carrion-Alvarez & Tijerina-Salina, 2020; Rodrigues
& Xu, 2020) as these actors had little to no editorial standards to follow.
Simply put, in an age of declining trust in the mainstream media,
audience fragmentation and expanding social media platforms, it was
very difficult for the traditional gatekeepers to retain authorial control
over truth. A task that was made even harder by the irresponsible role
played by some media outlets—such as Fox News in the United States
—which, in search of ratings and political influence, went along with
some of the craziest conspiracy theories.
Another contributing factor that had laid the ground in the long run
for ample dissemination and embracement of conspiracy theories was
what Chris Mooney (2007) and Shan Otto (2016) have respectively
called the ‘War on Science’. This refers to the systematic and at times
politically orchestrated efforts to undermine public trust in science and
by all accounts preceded the COVID-19 pandemic as it is a war that has
been waged for decades. Over the years it has been driven mostly—but
not exclusively—by political and corporative agendas, which have
included deliberate attempts to question scientific consensus around
issues such as man-made global warming, the risks of nuclear energy
and the negative effects of smoking upon people’s health (Oreskes &
Conway, 2010, 2011). These wars have created doubts around scientific
consensus in relation to the potential dangers of nuclear plants, the
deadly impact of smoking and the effects of greenhouse emissions and
man-made climate change.
 More recently, disinformation around science has incorporated a
variety of voices that include reptilian-world-dominated believer David
Icke and right-wing newspaper columnists such as Peter Hitchens (both
in the United Kingdom) as well as conspiracy-theory radio host Alex
Jones in the United States, among other more credible voices such as
podcast producer Joe Rogan and tennis player Novak Djokovic. This
also includes a growing army of flat-earth believers and those who
promote versions of the pandemic as being an elite conspiracy to
dominate the world by billionaires such as Bill Gates and George Soros
to implant microchips in our brains using 5G mobile technology and
control world population (Oliver & Wood, 2014).
In general terms, the efforts of the mainstream news media to
disseminate and explain to people the science behind the responses to
COVID-19 have brought mixed results in countries such as the United
States where many have lost trust in the media. Being a traditional ally
of governments by helping them to ‘manufacture consensus’ (Herman
& Chomsky, 2010 [1988]; Lippmann, 1992 [1922]) around particular
policies despite normative claims of being a watchdog, the news media
saw itself nevertheless in a position where it found it extremely difficult
to convince many people to follow expert advice, despite overwhelming
evidence and facts to support that advice.
To this we have to add, as numerous studies suggest, the fact that
many journalists are not particularly good at communicating science
even as they continue to be the main link between scientists and the
public (Anderson et al., 2005; Peters, 2013; Trench & Junker, 2001).
Indeed, one of the fundamental lessons from the COVID-19 crisis was
the need not only to educate society at large but also to have better-
prepared news reporters who can inform the public and deal with
scientific issues more effectively (Bernadas & Ilagan, 2020; Olsen et al.,
2020).
Several studies have looked at how journalists need to embrace and
address these types of challenges (Bauer et al., 2013; Bauer & Bucchi,
2008; Bauer & Howard, 2009; Fjæstad, 2007). These studies suggest
that in many cases, and especially in the Global South, reporters
covering the science beat are poorly resourced and ill-equipped to
produce science news which means basic levels of accuracy, rigour and
public engagement (Martisini, 2018; Nguyen, 2017; Nguyen & Tran,
2019). Other important aspects highlighted by this body of research
point towards other common challenges and issues such an increasing
lack of trust by the public and also the growing presence of fake news
and conspiracy theories in the past few years.
Having said that, few studies in the West have looked at the role of
science journalists in the Middle East and Northern Africa Region,
where around 580 million people live today (Skalli, 2006). This, despite
the fact that science has historically had a central role in the
development of these societies, where religion, culture and science
were profoundly interconnected in public life. To be sure, one of the
most under-studied paradoxes of our times is the enormous gap
between a rich heritage of Islam’s engagement with science against the
current state of many Arab countries, which are only now starting to try
to catch up with the West in terms of investment in research and
development (Determann, 2015; Giles, 2006). Part of this gap is the lack
of public engagement with science and the poor state of science
journalism in the region.
Consequently, our book has a double task. On the one hand, we want
to describe, analyse and assess the current state of science journalism
as a political institution in Arab countries. This, as we want to inquire
about journalism in those societies and its function in connecting
people to scientific knowledge and truth. On the other, we want to
critically explore the role journalism has played within the broader
process of modernisation and transformation that these societies have
experienced in the past decades. This last point is a task that is both
welcomed and contested by the singular historical and political setting
that characterises politics and the media system in this part of the
world (Mellor, 2005, 2011).
In so doing, the book discusses why society’s engagement with
science is so crucial in the modern Arab world (Bauer & Howard, 2009;
Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). Having said that, trying to project
generalised assumptions to the whole region without considering the
particular and distinctive characteristics of each society would be
presumptuous on our part. To say the least, science news reporters in
Kuwait work under very different conditions than, let’s say, Oman or
Egypt. Nevertheless, by choosing what we believe to be a representative
sample of countries, we have allowed ourselves to draw some general
inferences that might shed light on how science news reporting
happens in this part of the world.

Preceding Debates
However, one cannot explore the topic of science journalism in the
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) without first covering key and
more general debates around the broader field of science
communication, which has centred around two key aspects. On the one
hand, there are those—particularly scientists—who have stressed the
need for ‘accuracy’ when dealing with science news (Hansen, 2016;
Murcott, 2009). For these voices, the most important issue regarding
how journalists cover science and their outputs relates to the accuracy
(or lack of it) among reporters of science news (Fjæstad, 2007; Seale,
2010). Many argue that the way in which science news is reported,
especially when it comes to natural science, is inadequate because of its
not reported or under-reporting of important scientific progress,
tendency to sensationalism and negativity in wording and in
presentation, and inaccurate reporting.
The other camp, on the other hand, has argued more around the
need for journalists to make science news more relevant to the public
while approaching stories in general in a more critical manner (Nguyen
& McIlwaine, 2011). For these authors, the problem is not so much to
do with accuracy—although they recognise the underlying issues
around this—but the fact that many common citizens fail to engage
with science news because it does not seem to be relevant enough to
their individual and collective lives. In addition, and perhaps more
importantly, these authors point to the lack of criticality around science
news reports. For them and others, many journalists, with few
exceptions, lack the necessary capabilities and tools to scrutinise
science, therefore leaving it unaccountable as a news source.
In this sense, the Arab scientific news media presents deficiencies in
both aspects. There is minimal scientific content and what there is
seems not to live up to the standards in terms of accuracy while stories
do not seem compelling enough to attract larger audiences. The overall
volume of scientific information that appears in the Arab media is
slight, if not negligible, when compared to the reporting of scientific
information worldwide, and when considering the size of the Arab
media establishment (El-Awady, 2009). Specialised scientific
publications either do not exist or are just local versions of Western
outlets that seldom reflect the science that is carried out in these
countries. Even in Egypt, the largest media market by size, the space its
daily newspapers, magazines and broadcasters allocate to science is
rather minimal (Mehran, 2018, p. 101).
The credibility of scientific news is also one of the problems facing
science journalism in the Arab world. Indeed, Mahmoud’s (2018) study
on public attitudes towards the credibility of scientific and
technological news in Egyptian newspapers and electronic media
suggested that science and technology news is found to be less credible
on average than other types of news. This is something that we will
look closer at in this book, particularly as the same study suggests that
digital native news media are far more credible than the traditional
printed newspapers given that the latter are strongly associated with
the governments in the region. Therefore, it is important to remind
ourselves that the study of science journalism cannot be performed in a
vacuum but as part of a broader political and cultural context.
To be sure, many media outlets in the region continue to be owned
or closely controlled by the state and as such the line between news
and propaganda is at times both blurred and thin (Hamdy, 2013;
Moore-Gilbert & Abdul-Nabi, 2021). Consequently, many journalists
offer coverage that is often uncritical, particularly of public policy and
specific issues that affect society. One example was Egypt’s media
coverage of the outbreak of the swine flu in 2009. As a result, there was
a presidential decree that pigs in that country were to be sacrificed,
even though there was no evidence of the virus in these animals. Before
the epidemic hit the country, Egypt’s Minister of Health at the time,
Hatem El-Gabaly, asked people to perform prayers and take university
exams in open spaces rather than in mosques. Uncritical coverage by
Egypt’s media of these policies and actions translated into
fearmongering and widespread disinformation among the audiences
(El-Awady, 2009).
Having said that, restrictions upon professional autonomy of
journalists and gags on the news media are the least of the problems. A
much bigger issue, as we will discuss in this book, is the more general
lack of engagement with science by the general public and the actual
lack of expertise of journalists to understand science. One of the
problems we faced as researchers is that there are currently insufficient
studies and surveys identifying the level of scientific awareness among
the public in MENA. Moreover, some scholars agree that those working
in the field of scientific media are addressing an audience about whom
they know almost nothing (Abu Haseera, 2018, p. 85). The role of
audiences in creating a sustainable market and deliberative space for
science is indeed a very important part of the equation in
understanding science news gathering, production and dissemination
in the Middle East. This, as well as the existing attitudes and
perceptions from the general public towards science and scientific-
related issues. It is a part of the world in which scientific journalism
must contend with tensions between politics, science and culture, as
well as the associated spread of superstition and false science (Saber,
2013, p. 192). Let us not forget that these are a series of societies in
which conspiracy theories have run wild for a very long time and
continue to do so (Aistrope & Bleiker, 2018; Essam & Abdo, 2021).
Journalists in the region possess insufficient scientific backgrounds
so as to allow them to truly comprehend the stories they were
reporting, something that we confirmed in most of the interviews we
carried out. Part of the reason is that there are very few provisions that
offer science communication or science journalism courses at the
university level. These practitioners often lack expertise and
specialisation in science journalism and consequently their outputs do
not live up to standards normally accepted in other parts of the world.
As Sidqi (2009) discussed some time ago, this weakness is manifested
in several ways. For instance, Arab journalists are unable to read
scientific material in foreign languages, and they do not have the ability
to translate it into Arabic.
Problems include a poor command of English by reporters, scarcity
of scientific sources in Arabic, limitation of the information available
and a weak contribution to international science by the region. All these
issues come together to create the perfect storm against science
dissemination in the news (Sidqi, 2009, p. 26). However, even when
journalists do manage to access proper academic journals and read
peer-reviewed articles, reporters still exhibit a level of functional
illiteracy in science because they lack a basic comprehension of what
the article actually says or do not understand the meaning of technical
terminology and concepts.
In turn, scientific news written by journalists are unclear as they
just reproduce the technical language of science and therefore are
hardly understood by non-specialists as our own study shows in this
book. Moreover, poor editing and sub-editing, as well as a deficient fact-
checking system and weak post-production approach, lead to
inaccuracies, over-simplifications, exaggerations or simply falsehoods.
Accuracy—or the lack of it—is not the only problem. The ability to
take a science issue and turn it into a relevant and appealing story
seems equally to be a problem. In many cases, as we saw in our own
analysis, stories are not accessible or relevant enough and at times are
even boring and longer than they need to be. To be clear, this is not only
the fault of journalists as they are hardly supported by their
organisations in investigating and publishing science stories.
In addition, reporters face a problem of accessing news sources.
Indeed, it is difficult for reporters lacking professional skills to find
good local experts and scientists willing to act as news sources given
the nature of the political systems and a widespread culture of self-
censorship. Journalists who regularly cover science, health,
environment, and technology in Africa and the Arab world face a
number of difficulties, such as the lack of elementary resources for
journalistic research and the existence of newsroom environments that
are not always supportive of specialised reporting (Lublinski et al.,
2014).
All these issues, and others, will be discussed in this book as part of
a larger debate on the role of science journalism in Arab society and the
role that it plays in the construction of knowledge and truth. These are
pressing issues such that each one deserves a larger discussion. Hence,
our book acknowledges that it is rather a piece of a broader puzzle that
will take far more research and work to solve. Hence, we have
approached the following chapters as being a stepping-stone towards a
better understanding of the topic rather than the definitive guide to it.
Considering the above, the first step is perhaps to agree upon a
definition of both the idea of science journalism and its distinctiveness
from science communication. In this sense, some authors have defined
the ‘science news beat’ as a journalistic genre that primarily deals with
scientific achievements and breakthroughs, the scientific process itself
and the reporting of scientists’ quests and difficulties in solving
complex problems (Angler, 2017). As such, science journalism is
primarily a specialisation within journalism practices that reports
about the work of scientists, the research institutions in which they
work, the politics around science and the processes and impacts of
scientific discovery.
In so doing, journalists report science news and help the public
make sense of science as a socially constructed reality in their day-to-
day life. They do this not only by disseminating and sharing scientific
knowledge in an accurate manner (something that science
communication in its multiple forms does), but also by interpreting it in
ways that make science and technology relevant, accessible, interesting,
and relevant to the public. Science journalism is also, and perhaps more
importantly, a practice that aims to bring about accountability to
science and scientists in the ways it does in other sectors of society.
That is, by questioning purposes, aims, procedures, ethics and impact.
In this book we look specifically at the science media outlets and
science journalistic practices. We inquire about the role they play in
exchanging science information and how they have contributed
towards science debates within the community. We explore the
potential to increase public access to relevant and accurate science
knowledge. In our discussion, we take into consideration the
disruptions within the media systems, which include, among other
things, the emergence of social media and participatory publishing.
However, it is important to underline that we mostly refer to the
mainstream media, which in the Arab world continues to set the agenda
and define public debates.
In the Arab world, the notion of science journalism as a professional
and specialised field can be complex as nowadays it comprises a variety
of platforms, outputs and actors that were not traditionally considered
as news actors. While traditionally science was considered that which
was published in the science section or produced by science journalists
(Summ & Volpers, 2016), today, it is defined by a broader range of
parameters and includes various types of beats such as health,
technology and environment. In this sense, science journalists in MENA
can be broadly defined as specialists who deliver science developments
and events to their audiences, offer analysis and research background
and scrutinise the sources and reliability of research.

On Science Communication
On the other hand, science communication plays a major role in
modern society by promoting scientific awareness, understanding,
scientific literacy and science cultures. Accordingly, science
communication is defined as ‘the use of appropriate skills, media,
activities and dialogue to produce one or more of the following
personal responses to science: awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-
forming and understanding’ (Burns et al., 2003, p. 183).
Several scholars have argued that science communication is
important to the public as it contributes to societies’ renaissance and
development by increasing the rationality of public debate, making it
sounder and more likely to be evidence based (Bauer & Bucchi, 2008;
Nelkin, 1995b). It not only informs the public about what happens in
science but also provides information essential to shaping views on
public policy (Nelkin, 1995; Treise & Weigold, 2002, p. 311).
Science communication has been a major factor in popularising
science in the past few decades and raising societal awareness about
agendas and issues relating to science. This is because the relationship
between scientists and communicators is essential to making scientific
knowledge accessible to the general public. Ashwell (2016) notes that
the concept of science communication refers mainly to the exchange of
information between two or more persons or groups using a
communication medium, or channel in the pursuit of disseminating
scientific truth. Hence, it mainly addresses the exchange of science
information between two or more persons or groups.
The development of science communication is an important
phenomenon that has helped many societies develop and create
opportunities for informed-debate and rational-based public policy
based on scientific inquiry. Over time, science communication efforts
became accompanied by an increase in public relations professionals,
which has now grown into a profession that aims to disseminate within
societies the most fundamental knowledge regarding scientific facts.
This has in turn laid the ground for science journalism to be able to find
access to more accessible sources but that also relies more on
particular agendas (Allan, 2009, 2011; Meyer, 2018).
According to Stilgoe et al. (2014), one significant problem
associated with the differences in the level of science awareness in
society is the public’s limited knowledge of scientific facts that can help
ease their lives and understand pivotal issues. This is a problem that we
certainly identified also in the MENA region, where we found a lack of
awareness and interest in topics relating to science as one of the key
problems. In other latitudes, science communication has helped
increase the public’s level of engagement with science and there are
some important efforts in MENA but which are so far limited in scope
and impact. Nevertheless, even as limited as they are, these efforts have
improved the opportunities of non-experts and even of the public to
find solutions in science to common problems identifiable in their daily
lives.
In addition to this, the increase in the presence of science news in
the media space has promoted additional awareness. This is not only in
mainstream media but also through the lenses of social media
platforms. In many countries, the transformation of the media
landscape has made important contributions to the dissemination of
science. For example, Claussen et al. (2013) explored the digital
channels, including social media, on which photographs and videos
related to science news can be shared, making science knowledge
accessible to wider segments of societies. These authors have
underlined how the significant growth of social media sites, including
Facebook, Twitter and other blogging sites, has helped to spread
science news to large segments of societies. They also point out that, in
addition to raising public awareness related to science knowledge, the
growth of science communication helps to bridge societies’ knowledge
gaps regarding scientists’ contributions to development.
Contributions to science communication are classified into four
models, which have been described as: deficit, lay expertise, contextual
and public participation (Lewenstein, 2003). These models refer mostly
to the function and aim of the science communication efforts and to
where they are directed. Other researchers have identified other
classifications, including the dissemination model, often called the
Deficit Model, the dialogue model and the participative model (Gregory
& Miller, 1998; Littlejohn & Foss, 2010; Marshall & Wickenden, 2018;
Trench, 2008). Broadly speaking, we found that this theoretical
explanatory framework is relevant to MENA as a region, particularly
given the gaps in knowledge and limitations to participation.
In this sense, the Deficit Model is a key concept that sees scientists
as experts who hold knowledge and the public as lacking in capabilities
to properly understand science (Lévy-Leblond, 1992; Trench, 2008)
and that we find applicable to MENA. For those who proposed this
model, the public lacks sufficient knowledge to participate in, and
contribute to, scientific debates (Sturgis & Allum, 2004), which is the
case for Arab countries. If the public is provided with enough data
about modern science and technology to overcome this ‘knowledge
deficit’, it can view science as beneficial (Dickson, 2005). As science in
Arab countries happens under the auspices of the state and there are
limited options for individual decisions, then providing information to
manufacture consensus is the viable path in that part of the world.
This, because the deficit model implies that science communication
flows in only one direction, with scientists producing information and
the public receiving it. This model of science communication sees
communication as being initiated at the point where the source sends
the information and as being completed when the audience receives it
in an appropriate, understandable format. This implies a hierarchical
structure that in many ways echoes traditional communication formats
in the Arab world where there is tight control of the media.
We do have to accept, however, that this is an incomplete model
given that it does not really account for the audiences’ responses,
interactions and receptions. Nevertheless, the deficit model is still the
default choice in many areas of science in the Arab world. In these
cases, the deficit model persists as the most effective way of
underpinning much of the science communication efforts in the region.
In fact, as some authors have argued, there is a legitimate case that can
be made for retention of a dissemination model in certain
circumstances (Trench, 2008) such as in MENA, we would add.
This is not to say that other models, such as the dialogue model,
broadly based on the exchange of ideas, opinions, beliefs and feelings
between participants—both speakers and audience—are not present in
MENA. In many spaces of these societies, things are negotiated rather
than imposed and dialogue is the only way forward. This model has
been defined as a ‘two-way, interactive and participatory’ process that
includes the valued aspects of mutual respect, humility and trust (Reid
et al., 2018, p. 123). Accordingly, science is communicated between
scientists and their representatives and other groups, sometimes to
find out how science could be more effectively disseminated,
sometimes for consultation on specific applications (Trench, 2008).
However, in the mainstream media space in MENA, critical responses
and contestation to authority are not common so the applicability of
this model is limited as is the Participation Model for similar reasons.
In this sense, the Participation Model focuses on the activities that
contribute to sharing and therefore to confidence in science policy. It
emerged in reaction to the importance of social trust in political
disputes about issues regarding science and technology. In many ways,
it was a response to the lack of public involvement in the process of
decision-making and public policy regarding science and technology
(Joss, 1999; Lewenstein, 2003). This explains why it also has limited
applicability in MENA.
Despite the fact that most people in the region are aware of the
limitations imposed on the professional autonomy of journalists and on
media independence, they both continue to represent the primary
source of science information in the region. In the Arab world,
therefore, science communication is still heavily dependent on the
traditional media outlets that continue to be centralised, controlled and
hierarchical. This, together with the fact that these societies have
limited rights for individual choice, explains why fake news and
conspiracy theories were less of an issue in that part of the world when
it came to vaccination and use of masks during the pandemic. It also
suggests that in that context, the deficit model is the most suitable one,
in the face of political realities in the region.

Science in the Muslim World

The Arab world is situated in a large geographic area and includes
countries in Asia and Africa. The word ‘Arab’ is a term used to describe
a group of people who share the same language and certain other
identifying features including religion; although certainly Islam is not
the only one present. Nevertheless, the term ‘Arab’ is often used
synonymously with ‘Islam’ despite the fact that Islamic countries are
not necessarily the same countries as Arab ones and they include
instead many others such as Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan, to
name just a few in which in fact the great majority of Muslims live.
However, the terms ‘Arab’ and ‘Islamic’ are often used to mean more or
less the same thing or else they are combined into the expression ‘the
Arab-Islamic world’.
In reality, Arabia signifies the steppe and desert wastes bordering
on the territories of the states and principalities of Egypt and the Fertile
Crescent (Hoyland, 2002; Yildiz, 2018). The region is mostly identified
today with Islam despite the fact that most Muslims live outside that
region. Because of this, and due to the faith-based nature of the political
systems that prevail in that region, many people in the West see religion
as an obstacle to science. This is mostly because many are unaware of
the rich scientific heritage from this religion. Historians and other
scholars acknowledge the significant contribution of Islam to the
contemporary world and particularly to science (Falagas et al., 2006).
In fact, today’s humanity enjoys much of its modern-age
development in various fields, including medicine, astronomy,
mathematics and others thanks to the early scientific observations and
works of several Muslim and Arab scholars and scientists. This includes
al-Khwarizmi, who is known as the father of algebra, and ibn-Sina, who
is considered the founder of early modern medicine (Ajwa et al., 2003;
Gohlman, 1986). Dallal (2010) indicates that most historians of Islamic
science agree that the beginnings of Islamic science originated with the
translation movement of the earlier scientific and philosophical works
of important civilisations, including ancient Greece. He also suggests
that in the Middle Ages, Muslim societies were involved with pure
science and knowledge in ways not seen before or again until the
developments of the current era. His argument is that the number of
scientists and science books produced at that time are unequalled by
those of any other time or civilisation in the pre-modern era.
Moreover, Nasr and De Santillana (1968) describe the ancient
sciences of the Mediterranean peoples as being the starting point of the
arts and sciences in Islam. That heritage, in particular the knowledge
and philosophy of the Greeks, was translated into Arabic by famous
translators, including Hunain ibn-Ishaq and Thabit ibn-Qurrah (Nasr &
De Santillana, 1968). Many works by Greek authors in nearly all areas
and fields of knowledge were translated into Arabic.
The same view is shared by others, who argue that there was a
strong translation movement after 750 CE, at the time of the Abbasid
Caliphs, who sponsored this movement. Most science books were
translated into Arabic. Chaney stated that ‘this translation movement
coincided with and served as a catalyst for the explosion of scientific
output that occurred in the Islamic world over the following centuries’
(2016, p. 6). This period witnessed important scientific achievements
and advances in fields that included astronomy, mathematics, medicine
and optics (Kennedy, 1970; Yusoff et al., 2011).
Particularly important was the ‘boom in translation’ during the time
of the Abbasid Caliphs which was compatible with the teaching of the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to seek knowledge everywhere, even if
you have to go to China. Baghdad, the capital of the Islamic empire at
the time, was the centre stage for this movement and that translators
were highly paid. This began slowly at the time of the caliphate of al-
Mahdi (775–85) and Harun al-Rashid (786–809) and flourished in the
time of al-Mamun. Ancient treatises and books from Greece, Persia,
India and even China were brought to Baghdad to be translated into
Arabic (Masood, 2017, p. 44).
The translation movement was one that led to later developments
and advances in many scientific fields and other areas. Collectively,
these advances are known as the ‘Islamic Golden Age’, a name bestowed
by the ‘Orientalist’ movement (Said, 2003 [1978]). Renima et al. (2016)
argue that there is no agreement among historians on the exact
beginning and end of the Golden Age. According to them, it was a
process rather than a specific period. However, that point in time was
known for important events, including the establishment of the Bait el
Hikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad in the second half of the eighth
century. Scientifically, the Golden Age witnessed important
breakthroughs and advances. For example, in mathematics, important
developments included the decimal place value system, decimal
fractions, the first systematised study of algebra (named for the work of
al-Khwarizmi, a scholar of the House of Wisdom) and other
developments in geometry and trigonometry (Van Sertima, 1992). By
the end of the eighth century, the Abbasids applied the decimal system
and invented ‘Arabic’ numerals. They were the first to use the zero,
which facilitated operations in a highly remarkable way compared to
that of Roman numerals (Renima et al., 2016). The poet Omar al-
Khayyam (1048–1131 CE) is another example of the important
influence of Muslim scientists at that time. He was a theologian who
wrote important studies that helped to establish the principles of
algebra, which formed part of the Muslim mathematics that was later
passed on to Europeans (Allard, 1997).
In addition to mathematics, astronomy was an area in which Islamic
Golden Age scientists made their contributions particularly useful for
navigation and discovery. Muslim scholars renewed their interest in
this field of knowledge and added to the heritage and contributions of
other civilisations. They also noted the support for scientific efforts by
the Abbasid rulers, as exemplified by Caliph al Ma’mun, who built an
observatory within the framework of the House of Wisdom. The results
and achievements of the House of Wisdom were so great as to influence
Byzantine, European and Chinese astronomy (Rā shid & Jolivet, 1997).
In addition, alchemy, or early chemistry, is another field that grew
during the Golden Age. As it did later on in Europe, where people of the
time believed it was possible to transform other matter into gold using
an ideal agent called an ‘elixir’, something that Isaac Newton himself
would try centuries later (Sherwood Taylor, 1956; Westfall, 1994).
There was however well-grounded research. Jabir ibn-Hayyan (721–
780 CE), for example, a well-known scholar of alchemy at the time,
studied the compositions of minerals and their transformations. In
addition to other well-known Muslim alchemists, ibn-Hayyan
developed many processes and reached important findings that served
as the basis for modern chemistry.
Overall, we can firmly state that the relationship between science
and religion is not a new topic of study in Islam. It is also true that most
religions have had serious discussions about, and tensions with, science
and we need to acknowledge that Islam is no exception. However, in
many ways, Islam has had a much more positive relationship with
science throughout history than Christianity, which was known for
‘burning at the stake’ some the most brilliant minds in history
(Martínez, 2018). This is not an attempt to romanticise or simplify the
complexities and tensions between two of the most important
categories in society. Tensions and clashes exist but not at the
antagonistic level that some authors have tried to caricature (Dawkins,
2006; Hitchens, 2008).
In fact, several Qur’anic verses indicate the importance of learning
and acquiring knowledge and the Qur’an states clearly that those who
know are not equal to those who know not, by adding that it is only
men of understanding who will be remembered (Yusoff et al., 2011).
Many Qur’anic verses highlight the importance of science, and many
narrations and hadiths from the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) offer
additional encouragements to Muslims to seek scientific knowledge.
The meanings of these teachings remind Muslims of the importance of
searching for knowledge and that doing so is an obligation and duty of
all Muslims, both men and women.
Nevertheless, there is a lack of universal agreement around science
and the Qur’an. Some believe that the two are compatible while others
do not. Barbour indicates four categories of relationships between
science and religion: contradiction and conflict; independence;
interaction or dialogue and unity and integration (Yusoff et al., 2011, p.
54). Accordingly, such classification is useful to a scholar proving his or
her point, and the same could be said about the relationship between
science and the Qur’an. In addition, they refer to Qur’anic verses that
have scientific references, including one that describes the mountains
as stabilisers. This is accepted by, for example, El-Naggar, the author of
the book The Geographical Concept of Mountains in the Qur’an, who
claims that there are no contradictions between the explanations of
mountain formation contained in scientific studies and those contained
in the Qur’an.
In addition, Na’ik (2001) highlights the theological compatibility
between science and the Qur’an. He provides many examples in which
Qur’anic verses refer to phenomena that were later proved by scientific
research and experiments. On the astronomical front, he discusses
verses that suggested that the Earth is circular at a time when many
people in Europe thought that it was flat. This is the case of the verse
about the alternation of day and night which is a clear indication that
the Earth is circular and not flat, or any other shape.
 However, others argue that the idea of science in Islamic studies is
not clear and does not have a definite meaning, as the word that is used
to refer to science in Arabic, ‘ilm’, did not have the same significance
that it has today. They add that some orthodox Muslim scholars go as
far as to indicate that the definition of science should include ‘religious
sciences’ as well as natural sciences (Guessoum, 2008, p. 416). Some
argue that there is a clear difference between ‘science’ and ‘ilm’, with
the latter meaning knowledge in general rather than only science. For
example, Guessoum (2008) explores one disagreement among scholars
about the meaning of the word ‘ilm’. The object of this disagreement is
whether the contemporary significance of science matches the old
Islamic meaning of ‘ilm’.
Regardless of the controversial nature of the definitions of the terms
and the various dimensions and aspects of science in Islam, there is
very little doubt that over the centuries many civilisations have
interpreted from the Qur’an encouragement and motivation for
Muslims to think and reflect from inside themselves about their
external world and their beings. Civilisations after civilisations that
have placed their faith in Islam have fallen in line with the Qur’an and
Islamic teachings that promote scientific knowledge-seeking as
evidence of God’s creation and brilliance. In addition, Dallal argues that
certain types of knowledge are considered ‘collective religious
obligations’ (2010, p. 113). Besides fulfilling the obligations of praying,
giving alms and fasting, Muslims are asked to have enough skilled
people in each field of knowledge. For example, each Islamic
community should have enough physicians, teachers and those skilled
in the other indispensable areas of life.
Masood (2017) emphasises the important role of Islam in
encouraging and supporting the pursuit of knowledge. By referring to
the fact that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) often highlighted the
importance of good health and urged people to seek medical treatment,
Masood clearly shows Islam as a tradition in favour of science, learning
and acquiring knowledge. Afridi (2013) notes that Islamic teachings
through the Qur’an place much importance on searching for knowledge
and learning. Ancient Muslim scholars were very much convinced that
there is a duty and a divine instruction to be absorbed in science. Afridi
makes a very important reference to the fact that the Qur’an begins
with the word ‘Read’, followed by verses that state that God taught
humans what they did not know and verses that speak about
knowledge.
After all the interest in the scientific and cultural works of other
important civilisations and their translation into Arabic, it is natural
that many Muslim and Arab scholars and scientists achieved brilliant
and significant discoveries, making contributions in a variety of fields of
knowledge. In mathematics, Islamic scientific contribution is neither
small nor a subject of disagreement. The numbers used the world over
today in all areas of daily life are called ‘Arabic numerals’ because they
were developed by Muslim scholars speaking and working in Arabic. In
addition, algebra, a mathematics discipline developed by al-Khwarizmi,
is considered one of the most useful tools in mathematics, facilitating
our lives and forming the basis of most scientific disciplines. al-
Khwarizmi is regarded as one of the most famous figures of Arab
mathematics. His efforts in clarifying the Indian numbering system—
which later became known as the Arabic system of numbers when al-
Khwarizmi passed it on to Europe—are regarded as one of the most
important contributions to humanity. Afridi (2013, p. 49) also discusses
this mathematician’s contributions, arguing that the words ‘algebra’
and ‘algorithm’ derive their names from this, and adds that some of al-
Khwarizmi’s books were translated into European languages and used
in European universities until the sixteenth century as principal text
books.
al-Khwarizmi is not the only famous mathematician in Islamic
history. In eleventh-century Egypt, Hassan ibn al-Haitham was known
as one of the scholars who created the basics of the integral calculus
used to measure areas and volumes. His work and books on geometry,
especially analytical geometry, number theory and the link between
algebra and geometry, are also recognised by Europeans as having great
significance (Afridi, 2013; Masood, 2017). In addition, among the
Muslim scientists who left their mark on the world of mathematics,
Omar al-Khayyam is highly regarded. In the early eleventh century, this
scientist was able to calculate the number of days in a year. Different
scholars note that his calculations were very close to the contemporary
calculations achieved by modern tools, which include radio telescopes
and atomic clocks. al-Khayyam is also well known for his interpretation
of Euclid’s geometry theories.
Furthermore, mathematics was not the only scientific area in which
Muslim scientists made great developments. The discipline of physics
also attracted their attention and interest. Unlike the Greeks, who relied
more on theoretical and philosophical understanding and analysis of
the natural sciences, Muslims relied rather on experimentation to
understand physics. For instance, Muslim scientists were the first to
understand the nature of sound and acoustics. They were the first to
realise that bodies affect sounds and that these sounds move through
the air in the form of waves. In addition, they led in dividing sounds into
various categories.
With regard to physics, al-Beruni, a Muslim physicist, was able to
identify the specific density of 18 types of stone (Afridi, 2013, p. 50). He
also calculated the ratios between the densities of gold, silver, lead and
bronze, among other metals. Afridi also notes that Mansour al-Khā zini
was an unparalleled physicist, particularly in the areas of dynamics and
hydrostatics. His theories, among them the Theory of Obliquity and
Inclination and the Theory of Impulse, were applied by schools and
universities in the field of kinetics until the modern era. Important
Muslim scientists and scholars worked in nearly all areas and
disciplines, and it is beyond the scope of this review to include them all,
but in addition to the aforementioned, there are two important areas in
which Muslim scientists did wonderful jobs: chemistry and medicine.
In chemistry, several famous scientists have been mentioned by
historians, of whom Jabir ibn-Hayyan appears to be one of the most
influential. He was well known for important contributions in alchemy,
which he explored extensively, seeking to go beyond transmuting other
metals into gold. Their work showed impressive progress in all sectors
of science including chemistry and not only in the Arabian region. The
rulers of Islamic Spain, in an attempt to surpass Baghdad, recruited
scholars who made contributions of paramount importance to science,
medicine, technology, philosophy and art (Falagas et al., 2006).
Medicine is definitely another field in which Muslim scientists left
their mark, including such scholars as ibn-Sina, al-Razi and al-Baitar,
who cannot be overlooked worldwide, especially by medical students
or others interested in the field. For instance, ibn-Sina (980–1073) is
regarded as one of the greatest Muslim doctors. Known to the West as
Avicenna, ibn-Sina’s famous book, Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb, was commonly
used in Europe as a textbook for more than 70 decades (Afridi, 2013;
Falagas et al., 2006). His contributions to pharmacology and public
health are well recognised, including his ability to determine the
communicable nature of tuberculosis and some other diseases.
Another famous Muslim physician, al-Razi, also known as Rhazes, is
known for his medical achievements and for continuing the works of
scientists before him and for improving their classification systems. He
emphasised the need for proof by experimentation, and refined the raw
processes of distillation, evaporation and filtration. al-Razi was
appointed several times as the head of hospital in Baghdad. In addition,
his achievements included developing a treatment for kidney and
bladder stones and being among the first doctors to assess the side-
effects of therapies by applying them to animals (Amr & Tbakhi, 2007;
Tibi, 2006).
We could go on providing references to the history of Islam’s
engagement with science. However, it is enough for now to establish
that there is nothing inherent to this religion’s history or interpretation
of tradition that precludes it from fostering the quest for scientific
knowledge or embracing fully the scientific method. In this sense, Islam
is not in itself an obstacle either to science communication or science in
general. On the contrary, if one considers history and a variety of
theological interpretations, one would need to acknowledge that there
has been a supportive tradition in these societies in relation to
knowledge-seeking through evidence by the many religious texts
encouraging learning and teaching knowledge, that resonates today
(Alexakos & Antoine, 2005; Falagas et al., 2006).
Arab societies are predominantly ‘religious’ in nature but as some
scholars have argued this is a problematic category that has often been
abused to reduce these societies to a caricature of irrationality and
barbarism (Asad, 2020; Fitzgerald, 2003, 2007). Instead, a sounder
analysis needs to acknowledge that these are nation-states born from
the drawing of artificial borders, the clash of empires and legacy of
colonialism, all of which were followed by the prerogatives of the Cold
War. Consequently, they are hybrid formations that reflect a variety of
forces that over the years have defined culture and politics in the
region. Furthermore, the way Islam is understood today by many is
defined by modernity (Gray, 2007; Sayyid, 2014). Considering all this, it
would be naïve and simplistic to see these societies in their relation to
science only through the prism of religious identity.
Instead, today countries in MENA thrive for modernity in multiple
forms in the face of globalisation. There is ample evidence that the Arab
world wants not only to eradicate illiteracy but also to engage with
science in more comprehensive ways. In every single strategic
document from governments in the region, there is a clear commitment
to science. There is a prolific body of public policies and initiatives
directed towards fostering science and technology and encouraging
citizens to be more engaged with science in general.
For science journalists operating in the region this context is both a
challenge as well as an opportunity. There are areas that cannot be
transformed or open but there are others that are subject to
intervention and change. Yes, journalism as a political institution in
MENA faces important restraints in its professional autonomy and
challenges exist in relation to the ability of individual reporters to cover
effectively many news beats. However, the problems of science
journalism in that part of the world need to be understood as a complex
setting forged by history, politics and culture; a setting that
nevertheless is subject to a variety of variables upon which there is
potential to change.

Arab Science Journalism

It is clear that there are distinctive settings that enhance, constrain and
potentially hinder the autonomy of professional science journalists in
this region. Therefore, examining how journalists operating in this part
of the world—who already face very distinctive challenges associated
with culture, religion, post-colonial history, politics and economics—is
a promising opportunity not only to understand the subject in question,
but also to contribute to the wider debates around the de-
Westernisation of media studies as a whole in the context of science
communication. That is the task that we have set ourselves in the
following chapters.
 This book is the result of two research projects that were funded by
several institutions which included the Ministry of Education of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the grant NPRP12S-0317-190381 from the
Qatar National Research Fund, part of Qatar Foundation and Education
City, the Professional Development Fund awarded by Northwestern
University in Qatar and support from the University of Sharjah and the
Military Academy of Saudi Arabia. We want to thank them all for their
generous support, which shows the potential of the region when it
comes together to facilitate research and collaboration. We also want to
thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their constructive advice and
feedback. This book is much better thanks to them. Our gratitude also
goes to Bruce Mutsvairo, Saba Bebawi and Eddy Borges-Rey for leading
this extraordinary series of books in Palgrave that highlights the
contributions of the Global South to journalism studies. They have truly
opened a thriving space for debate and thought. Finally, but no less
important, we give thanks to our wives Alanoud and Maria Alejandra
and all of our children who provided the personal and emotional
support that allowed us to successfully culminate this project. It is a
project that is far from perfect, but then so are most of the first steps
that we take in our lives.

Bibliography
Abu Haseera, R. (2018). The reality of scientific journalism in the Palestinian daily
newspapers: A comparative analytical and field study. Islamic University of Gaza.

Afridi, M. (2013). Contribution of Muslim scientists to the world: An overview of

some selected fields. Revelation and Science, 3(01).

Aistrope, T., & Bleiker, R. (2018). Conspiracy and foreign policy. Security Dialogue,
49(3), 165–182.

Ajwa, I. A., Liu, Z., & Wang, P. S. (2003). Gröbner Bases Algorithm (pp. 1–14). The
Institute for Computational Mathematics.

Alexakos, K., & Antoine, W. (2005). The golden age of Islam and science teaching. The
Science Teacher, 72(3), 36.

Allan, S. (2009). The future of science journalism. Journalism, 10(3), 280–282.

Allan, S. (2011). Introduction: Science journalism in a digital age. Journalism, 12(7),
771–777.

Allard, A. (1997). L’influence des mathématiques arabes dans l’Occident médiéval.

Histoire Des Sciences Arabes, 2, 199–229.

Amr, S. S., & Tbakhi, A. (2007). Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Zakariya Al Razi (Rhazes):
Philosopher, Physician and Alchemist. Annals of Saudi Medicine, 27(4), 305–307.

Anderson, A., Peterson, A., David, M., & Allan, S. (2005). Communication or spin?
Source-media relations in science journalism. Journalism: Critical Issues, 188–198.

Angler, M. W. (2017). Science Journalism. An Introduction. Routledge.

Asad, T. (2020). Formations of the secular. Stanford University Press.

Ashwell, D. (2016). The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of

scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public
Understanding of Science, 25(3), 379–393.

Bauer, M., & Bucchi, M. (2008). Journalism, science and society: Science communication
between news and public relations. Routledge.

Bauer, M., Howard, S., Ramos, R., Jessica, Y., Massarani, L., & Amorim, L. (2013). Global
science journalism report: Working conditions & practices, professional ethos and future
expectations. Science and Development Network.

Bauer, M. W., & Howard, S. (2009). The Sense of Crisis among Science Journalists. A
survey conducted on the occasion of WCSJ_09 in London. StePS. London School of
Economics and Political Science. Institute of Social Psychology.

Bernadas, J. M. A. C., & Ilagan, K. (2020). Journalism, public health, and COVID-19:
Some preliminary insights from the Philippines. Media International Australia, 177(1),
132–138.

Burns, T., O’Connor, D., & Stocklmayer, S. (2003). Science communication: A

contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202.

Carrion-Alvarez, D., & Tijerina-Salina, P. X. (2020). Fake news in COVID-19: A

perspective. Health Promotion Perspectives, 10(4), 290.

Chaney, E. (2016). Religion and the rise and fall of Islamic science. Harvard University.
Claussen, J., Cooney, P., Defilippi, J., Fox, S., Glaser, S., Hawkes, E., Hutt, C., Jones, M.,
Kemp, I., & Lerner, A. (2013). Science communication in a digital age: Social media
and the American Fisheries Society. Fisheries, 38(8), 359–362.

Dallal, A. (2010). Islam, science, and the challenge of history. Yale University Press.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Bantam Books.

Determann, J. M. (2015). Researching biology and evolution in the Gulf states: Networks
of science in the Middle East. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a ‘deficit model’ of science communication.

SciDev.Net, 27.

El-Awady, N. (2009). Science journalism: The Arab boom. Nature, 459, 1057.

Essam, B. A., & Abdo, M. S. (2021). How do Arab tweeters perceive the COVID-19
pandemic? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(3), 507–521.

Falagas, M., Zarkadoulia, E., Samonis, G., & The FASEB Journal. (2006). Arab science in
the golden age (750–1258 CE) and today. The FASEB Journal, 20(10), 1581–1586.

Fitzgerald, T. (2003). The ideology of religious studies. Oxford University Press.

Fitzgerald, T. (2007). Discourse on civility and barbarity. Oxford University Press.

Fjæstad, B. (2007). 12 Why journalists report science as they do. In Journalism,

Science and Society (p. 123). Routledge.

Ghosh, S. M., & Qadeer, I. (2020). Public good perspective of public health evaluating
health systems response to COVID-19. Economic and Political Weekly, 40–48.

Giles, J. (2006). Islam and Science: Oil rich, science poor. Nature, 444(7115), 28–29.

Gohlman, W. (1986). The Life of Ibn Sina. Suny Press.

Gray, J. (2007). Black Mass: Apocalyptic religion and the death of Utopia. Macmillan.

Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and
credibility. Plenum Press.

Guessoum, N. (2008). The Qur’an, science, and the (related) contemporary Muslim
discourse. Zygon, 43(2), 411–431.
Hamdy, N. (2013). Arab investigative journalism practice. Journal of Arab & Muslim
Media Research, 6(1), 67–93.

Hansen, A. (2016). The changing uses of accuracy in science communication. Public

Understanding of Science, 25(7), 760–774.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of
the mass media. Random House.

Hitchens, C. (2008). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. McClelland &
Stewart.

Hoyland, R. (2002). Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam.
Routledge.

Joss, S. (1999). Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-
making—Ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Science and Public Policy, 26(5),
290–293.

Kennedy, E. (1970). The Arabic heritage in the exact sciences. American University of
Beirut.

Lévy-Leblond, J. (1992). About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public

Understanding of Science, 1(1), 17–21.

Lewenstein, B. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology.

Public Understanding of Science.

Lippmann, W. (1992). Public opinion. Routledge.

Littlejohn, S., & Foss, K. (2010). Theories of human communication. Waveland Press.

Lublinski, J., Reichert, I., Denis, A., Fleury, J., Labassi, O., & Spurk, C. (2014). Advances
in African and Arab science journalism: Capacity building and new newsroom
structures through digital peer-to-peer support. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism
Studies, 35(2), 4–22.

Mahmoud, N. (2018). The credibility of scientific and technological news in electronic

and paper newspapers among scientific elites and the general public. .

Marshall, J., & Wickenden, M. (2018). Services for people with Communication
Disabilities in Uganda: Supporting a new Speech and Language Therapy profession.
Disability and the Global South, 5(1), 1215–1233.
Martínez, A. A. (2018). Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition. Reaktion
Books.

Martisini, A. (2018). Journalism, statistics and quality in the news. University of Leeds.

Masood, E. (2017). Science and Islam (Icon Science): A History. Icon Books.

Matthews, O. (2020). Britain Drops Its Go-It-Alone Approach to Coronavirus. Foreign

Policy.

Mehran, Z. (2018). How to introduce science to the Arab child. Academic Library.

Mellor, N. (2005). The making of Arab news. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Mellor, N. (2011). Arab media: Globalization and emerging media industries (Vol. 1).
Polity.

Meyer, G. (2018). The Science communication challenge: Truth and disagreement in

democratic knowledge societies. Anthem Press.

Mooney, C. (2007). The Republican war on science. Basic Books.

Moore-Gilbert, K., & Abdul-Nabi, Z. (2021). Authoritarian downgrading,(self)

censorship and new media activism after the Arab Spring. New Media & Society, 23(5),
875–893.

Murcott, T. (2009). Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood. Nature, 459(7250),

1054–1055.

Muwahed, J. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic goes viral in the age of social media,
sparking anxiety. ABC News. https://​abcnews.​go.​c om/​Politics/​c oronavirus-
pandemic-viral-age-social-media-sparking-anxiety/​story?​id=​69580796

Na’ik, Z. (2001). Qur’an and modern science: Compatible or incompatible. Dar-US-

Salaam.

Nasr, S., & De Santillana, G. (1968). Science and civilization in Islam (Vol. 16). Harvard
University Press.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. Ed.
Freeman.

Nguyen, A. (2017). News, numbers and public opinion in a data-driven world.

Bloomsbury Publishing.
Nguyen, A., & McIlwaine, S. (2011). Who wants a voice in Science issues—And why?
A survey of European citizens and its implications for science journalism. Journalism
Practice, 5(2), 210–226.

Nguyen, A., & Tran, M. (2019). Science journalism for development in the Global
South: A systematic literature review of issues and challenges. Public Understanding
of Science, 28(8), 973–990.

Nisbet, M., & Scheufele, D. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising
directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778.

O’Reilly, A. (2020). Trump calls for restarting economy by Easter: ‘We have to get back
to work.’

Oliver, J. E., & Wood, T. J. (2014). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style (s) of
mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 952–966.

Olsen, R. K., Pickard, V., & Westlund, O. (2020). Communal news work: COVID-19 calls
for collective funding of journalism. Digital Journalism, 8(5), 673–680.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature,
465(7299), 686–687.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists
obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury
Publishing.

Otto, S. L. (2016). The war on Science: Who’s waging it, why it matters, what we can do
about it. .

Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public
communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3),
14102–14109.

Rāshid, R., & Jolivet, J. (1997). Oeuvres philosophiques et scientifiques d’Al-Kindi:

L’optique et la catoptrique (Vol. 29). Brill.

Reid, M., Walsh, C., Raubenheimer, J., Bradshaw, T., Pienaar, M., Hassan, C., Nyoni, C., &
Le Roux, M. (2018). Development of a health dialogue model for patients with
diabetes: A complex intervention in a low-/middle income country. International
Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 8, 122–131.

Renima, A., Tiliouine, H., & Estes, R. (2016). The Islamic golden age: A story of the
triumph of the Islamic civilization. In H. Tiliouine & R. Estes (Eds.), The State of
Social Progress of Islamic Societies (pp. 25–52). Springer.

Rodrigues, U. M., & Xu, J. (2020). Regulation of COVID-19 fake news infodemic in
China and India. Media International Australia, 177(1), 125–131.

Saber, N. (2013). The scientific media crisis: A study of the scientific press discourse
in Al-Ahram newspaper from October–December 2012. Arab Journal for Media and
Communication Research, 2, 192–215.

Said, E. (2003). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the Orient. Penguin Books Limited.

Sayyid, S. (2014). Recalling the Caliphate: Decolonisation and world order. Oxford
University Press.

Seale, C. (2010). How the mass media report social statistics: A case study
concerning research on end-of-life decisions. Social Science & Medicine, 71(5), 861–
868.

Shahsavari, S., Holur, P., Wang, T., Tangherlini, T. R., & Roychowdhury, V. (2020).
Conspiracy in the time of corona: Automatic detection of emerging COVID-19
conspiracy theories in social media and the news. Journal of Computational Social
Science, 3(2), 279–317.

Sherwood Taylor, F. (1956). An alchemical work of Sir Isaac Newton. Ambix, 5(3–4),
59–84.

Sidqi, H. (2009). Scientific journalism between theory and practice. Academic Library.

Skalli, L. (2006). Communicating gender in the public sphere: Women and

information technologies in the MENA. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 2(2),
35–59.

Stecula, D. A., & Pickup, M. (2021). How populism and conservative media fuel
conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and what it means for COVID-19 behaviors.
Research & Politics, 8(1), 2053168021993979.

Stein, R. A., Ometa, O., Shetty, S. P., Katz, A., Popitiu, M. I., & Brotherton, R. (2021).
Conspiracy theories in the era of COVID-19: A tale of two pandemics. International
Journal of Clinical Practice, 75(2) https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pmc/​articles/​
PMC7995222/​

Stephens, M. (2020). A geospatial infodemic: Mapping Twitter conspiracy theories of

COVID-19. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2), 276–281.
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement
with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.

Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of
public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74.

Summ, A., & Volpers, A. (2016). What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism
in German print media. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 775–790.

Tibi, S. (2006). Al-Razi and Islamic medicine in the 9th century. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 99(4), 206–207.

Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of

science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322.

Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication

models. In Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). Springer.

Trench, B., & Junker, K. (2001). How scientists view their public communication, 1–3.

Van Sertima, I. (1992). The golden age of the Moor (Vol. 11). Transaction Publishers.

Westfall, R. S. (1994). The Life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge University Press.

Yildiz, M. (2018). Historiography development in Arabic-Islamic history writing.

Yusoff, M., Yakub, M., & Danehsgar, M. (2011). Islam and the relation of science and the
Qur’an. International Conference on Humanities, Society and Culture, Singapore.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
A. Alhuntushi, J. Lugo-Ocando, Science Journalism in the Arab World, Palgrave Studies
in Journalism and the Global South
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14252-9_2

2. An Account of Science Journalism in

MENA
Abdullah Alhuntushi1 and Jairo Lugo-Ocando2
(1) Department of Media and Communication, King Khalid Military
College, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(2) University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Jairo Lugo-Ocando
Email: jlugoocando@sharjah.ac.ae

From all the avenues and forms used to communicate science to the
general public, science journalism continues to be one the most
influential and central in underpinning the efforts to provide access to,
and engage, common people with scientific knowledge (Al-Qafari, 2009;
Bauer, 2013). So much so, that while other forms of media
entertainment content—for example, films, television shows and others
—might reach mass audiences or be very comprehensive and accurate,
such as museums and exhibitions, they struggle to deliver both
(accurate information as in the first case or reach the mass public as in
the second case) at the same time.
Indeed, only science journalism seems capable of combining both.
This, as it encompasses comprehensive and accurate aspects of science
while, at the same time, is able to disseminate accurate and accessible
information across large segments of the public (Nguyen & McIlwaine,
2011; Nguyen & Tran, 2019) in ways that can be used and trusted on a
daily basis.
 This very important function of news reporting of science has been
widely acknowledged both by experts, scholars and the overall
scientific community, despite important reservations about the capacity
of journalists to report accurately and comprehensively both the
findings and process of producing scientific knowledge (Allan, 2011;
Hermida, 2010). In democratic societies, there has been more or less a
move towards the consolidation of science and technology as
permanent news beats in mainstream media outlets. That is, today
many newspapers, broadcasters and online digital native media
dedicate resources and have space and people dedicated to cover a
variety of topics relating to natural sciences and health. To be sure,
areas such as health, astronomy, the environment and even
mathematics receive regular news coverage by journalists who are fully
dedicated to write and produce stories about these topics.
Although the field of science communication is a broad one and
encompasses multiple dimensions and areas, it is the role of the news
media in reporting science that has received most attention by scholars
(Bauer, 2013; Bucchi, 1998; Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013; Fjæstad, 2007;
Nelkin, 1995; Treise & Weigold, 2002). This is because the news media
have an important role in communicating science to the public, and in
doing so, it not only raises awareness about science and its methods but
also makes science relevant to people and, subsequently, it can have an
impact on both policy and allocation of resources. It is in this context
that science journalism becomes relevant as it helps shape public
opinion and engagement with science.
Moreover, science communication in general has been a major part
of journalism throughout the past few decades. In this sense, science
journalism is the third most prolific news beat after social science and
life science, with 15% of all news stories (Al-Qafari, 2009). This is
mostly because it includes sub-areas such as health and technology in
its news beat. Moreover, science journalism has a significant role in
developing countries (Bauer, 2013; Mbarga et al., 2012). This, as it is
considered a platform for the introduction of ideas, innovations and
exchanges of expertise and experiences while fostering creative ability
(Al-Qafari, 2009 p. 89). In addition, in developed countries, science
news is considered one of the most trusted types of news. A YouGov
survey revealed that print and online news stories about science and
sports are considered the most trustworthy by the British public, with
sport having 17%, while science accounts for 14% of the total of trust
(Matter, 2017). This was, however, a survey carried out before the
COVID-19 pandemic, which we now know altered fundamentally public
perceptions of science news and trust in the media among large
segments of the audiences.
In addition, scholars argue that science communication is important
to the public not only because it fosters civic engagement with science
as a topical issue, but also because it introduces a degree of further
rationality into all public debates, making these discussions sounder
and more prone to evidence-based discussion (Bubela et al., 2009;
Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). For sure, science communication not only
informs people about what happens in science, but it can also provide
the public with essential information to shape their views about public
policy (Treise & Weigold, 2002, p. 311). Nelkin, for example, pointed
out that science communication supports ‘the individual’s ability to
make rational choices’. Thus, science communication can aid people in
making better decisions about their society and their own lives (1995,
p. 2). In this sense,

We all need science for making effective decisions in our lives. Are
the expected benefits of a medical procedure worth its risks? Does
it make sense to rebuild homes along the seashore after a
hurricane? How good are the predictions for storm surges? Should
we sign a lease for hydrofracking on our property? What are the
risks to our drinking water? Science is, potentially, the best source
for the evidence needed to answer these questions. Realizing that
potential will require effective two-way communication with those
whom science hopes to serve—so that it produces relevant
information and conveys it in a credible, comprehensible form.
(Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013, p. 1413)

The ability of journalists to report science news in an accessible and

accurate manner, while making these topics relevant to the general
public, allowing people to engage and actively participate in science
discovery, is, therefore, of vital importance given the reasons
enunciated above in relation to the need for society’s engagement with
science.
In relation to this, the debate within the science communication
field has mostly centred around two key aspects. On the one hand, there
are those—particularly scientists—who have stressed the need for
‘accuracy’ when dealing with science news (Hansen, 2016; Murcott,
2009). For these voices, the most important issue relates to the
accuracy of media reporting of science (Seale, 2010). Fjæstad (2007 p.
123) suggested some time ago that the way in which science news is
reported, especially when it comes to natural science, is inadequate
because of its non- or under-reporting of important scientific progress,
tendency to sensationalism and negativity in wording, presentation and
inaccurate reporting.
The other camp, on the other hand, has argued around the need for
journalists to make science news more relevant to the general public
while approaching science news in general in a critical manner (Nguyen
& McIlwaine, 2011). For these authors, the problem is not so much to
do with accuracy—although they recognise the underlying issues
around this—but the fact that many ordinary citizens fail to engage
with science news because it does not seem to be relevant enough to
their individual and collective lives. In addition, and perhaps more
importantly, these authors point to the lack of criticality around science
news reports. For them, many journalists, with few exceptions, lack the
necessary capabilities and tools to scrutinise science, therefore leaving
it unaccountable as a news source. It is because of these two camps in
particular, and the wider debates around science communication in
general, that we have decided to explore in my study the importance of
statistics in the articulation of science news.
In these settings, science news has become central in the
questioning of power and policy such as the use of genetically modified
organisms in the food production chain, the emissions of CO2 gases and
the link between smoking and cancer, to mention a few. Indeed, in many
liberal societies, science has become an ally of journalists seeking truth
and performing a role of watchdog to power in society. In places such as
Australia, Europe, Japan and the United States, science journalists use
science to challenge power relations and help improve the wellbeing of
society.
 However, the role of science journalists is by no means limited to
science dissemination and providing access to scientific knowledge but
also, and perhaps more importantly, it extends to bringing
accountability to science itself and putting it under the public
microscope in the same manner as it does with the actors of other news
beats. Hence, journalists’ function is also to question science itself.
Particularly, when its ethics are compromised by greed, power or
disdain for others. This was the case, to use a notorious historical
example, of the Tuskegee Study where members of the Afro-American
community were allowed to die in order to carry out scientific
observations of the effects of syphilis (Jones, 1993; Reverby, 2005).
Science journalists therefore are not just there to help popularise
science and make complicated notions accessible, but also to ask
important questions in relation to the impact of scientific work upon
the rest of society.
However, the question remains, how much of this function is
applicable to societies where news reporting operates in a completely
different framework? What happens in places in which journalists are
restricted politically, face important cultural limitations or where the
political economy of the news media is insufficiently developed so as to
sustain science as a permanent and specialised news beat? What other
limitations and challenges do journalists face under these
circumstances?
To explore these questions, this chapter looks at the case of science
journalism in MENA, where many of these limitations are present on a
daily basis. The idea is to assess through a combination of research
strategies the current state of science journalism in that region, while
inquiring about its function in society. In so doing, the chapter aims to
examine the role and performance of science reporting in the context of
societies that have limited freedom of expression and that are
politically and culturally defined in many instances by colonialism and
religion.
An important caveat in this analysis of the Middle East and North
Africa is the need to provide a comparative approach that is both intra-
regional as well as transnational. This, because of the need to explore
commonalities between science journalism roles and performances
within the Arab world and the way it is practised in the so-called West.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The basic Bessemer process is of great value to England and to
the continent of Europe by enabling manufacturers to use their
native ores, which are usually too high in phosphorus for the acid
process, so that before this invention nearly all of the ores for making
Bessemer steel were imported from Sweden, Spain, and Africa.
The basic process has found little development in the United
States, because the great abundance of pure ore keeps the acid
process the cheaper, except in one or two special localities. Where
the basic process is profitable in the United States, it is worked
successfully.
At about the time that Bessemer made his invention William
Siemens, afterward Sir William, invented the well-known
regenerative gas-furnace. A Frenchman named Martin utilized this
furnace to melt steel in bulk in the hearth of the furnace, developing
what was known for some years as Siemens-Martin steel, or open-
hearth steel; the latter name has prevailed, and open-hearth steel is
the fourth of the general kinds of steel mentioned in the beginning of
this chapter.
At first open-hearth steel was made upon a specially prepared
sand bottom, by first melting a bath of cast iron and then adding
wrought iron to the bath until by the additions of wrought iron and the
action of the flame the carbon and silicon of the cast iron were
reduced until the whole became a mass of molten steel. Sometimes
iron ore is used instead of wrought iron as the reducing agent; this is
called the pig and ore process. Now in general practice wrought iron,
steel scrap, and iron ore are used, sometimes alone and sometimes
together, as economy or special requirements make it convenient.
It was found as in the Bessemer, so in the open-hearth, the
sulphur and the phosphorus of the charge remained in the steel,
making it necessary to see that in the charge there was no more of
these elements than the steel would bear.
This is known now as the acid open-hearth process.
After the success of the basic Bessemer process was assured
the same principle was tried in the open-hearth; a basic bottom of
dolomite or of magnesite was substituted for the acid sand bottom,
and care was taken to secure a basic slag in the bath.
Success was greater than in the Bessemer; phosphorus was
eliminated and a better article in every way was made by this
process, now used extensively over the whole civilized world.
This is the basic open-hearth process.
Neither the basic Bessemer process nor the basic open-hearth
removed sulphur, so that this element must still be kept low in the
original charge, until some way shall be found for its sure and
economical elimination.
The four general divisions, then, are:
Converted or Cemented Steel.
Crucible-cast Steel.

Acid
Bessemer Cast Steel.
Basic

Acid
Open-hearth Cast Steel.
Basic
Little or nothing more will be said of the first kind, as it has been
so thoroughly superseded by the cast steels. After a statement of the
most patent applications and uses of the different cast steels the
discussions which follow will apply to all, because practically they are
all governed by the same general laws.
 II.
APPLICATIONS AND USES OF THE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF STEEL.

Where exact uniformity of composition is not a necessity, and

where welding is required, cemented or converted steel may be
preferred to cast steel, because the converted bar retains the
occluded layers of slag which give to wrought iron its peculiar
welding properties, and for this reason blister- or shear-steel may be
welded more easily and surely than cast steel. For tires, composite
dies, and many compound articles this steel will do very well, and it
may be worked with good results by almost any smith of ordinary
skill; however, owing to the more uniform structure and the greater
durability of the cast steels, they have, even for these purposes,
almost entirely displaced the more easily worked, but less durable,
cemented steels.

CRUCIBLE-CAST STEEL.
For all purposes crucible-steel has proved to be superior to all
others; it is well known to all experienced and observing workers in
steel that, given an equal composition, crucible is stronger and more
reliable in every way than any of the other kinds of steel.
This may read like a mere dictum, and it might be asked properly,
What are the proofs?
The proofs are wanting for two reasons: first, because crucible-
steel is so expensive that except for gun parts, armor, and such uses
where expense could be ignored, crucible-steel never came into
extensive use for structural purposes; second, that while thousands
upon thousands of tests of the cheaper steels are recorded and
available to engineers very few of such tests have been made on
crucible-steel, simply because it has not been used for structural
purposes.
On the other hand, intelligent makers of crucible-steel have for
self-preservation made careful study of the relative properties of the
different steels in order that they might know what to expect from the
cheaper processes. In this way they have surrendered boiler-steel,
spring-steel, machinery-steel, battering-tool steel, cheap die-steel,
and many smaller applications; not because they could not produce
a better article, but because the cheaper steels met the requirements
of consumers satisfactorily, and therefore they could not be expected
to pay a higher price for an article whose superiority was not a
necessity in their requirements.
Still this stated superiority is proven best by the fact that many
careful consumers who have special reasons for studying durability
as against first cost adhere to the higher priced crucible-steel for
such uses as, for instance, parts of mining- and quarrying-drills,
high-speed spindles, in cotton-mills, and in expensive lathes and
machines of that kind.
This sort of testimony should be more conclusive than that of
interested steel-makers, because these men pay their own money
for the higher priced material, and because men who are most
careful of the quality of their produce and of their reputation are the
most clear-headed and most sensible men of their class; they have
the best business and the greatest success. Such men are not fools;
they may be depended upon to try everything of promise with the
greatest care, and to use only that thing which pays them best. In
fact such men do use the cheaper steels freely wherever they can do
so safely.
A good car-spring, carriage-spring, or wagon-spring is made from
Bessemer or open-hearth steel, a spring that will wear out the car or
carriage; it would be stupid then to buy more expensive steel for
such purposes, for even if crucible-steel would wear out two cars or
two wagons the owner never expects to take the springs out of an
old wagon to put them under a new one.
 On the other hand, the watch-spring maker or the clock-spring
maker will find a great advantage in using the very best crucible-
steel that can be made.
A sledge, a maul, or a hammer can be made of such excellent
quality from properly selected Bessemer or open-hearth steel that it
would be foolish for makers of such tools to continue to buy crucible-
steel, even though they knew it to be superior, for lower first cost in
such cases outweighs superiority that cannot be shown for a number
of years.
Locomotive-boilers, crank-pins, slide-rods, connecting-rods, and
springs can be made of such good quality of Bessemer or open-
hearth steel that, like the “one-horse shay,” the whole machine will
wear out at the same time practically, and that a good long time;
there would be no reason in this case for using crucible-steel for one
or more of these parts, although twenty-five years ago it was by
means of crucible-steel that engineers learned to use steel for these
purposes.
A good cam for an ordinary machine, such as a shear or punch,
may be made of Bessemer or open-hearth steel where greater
strength and endurance are required than can be had in cast iron; on
the other hand, makers of cams for delicately adjusted high-speed
machines where intricacy and accuracy are necessary will touch
nothing but the very best crucible-steel of fine-tool quality for their
work. It is of no use to suggest the greater cheapness of the other
steels; they have tried them thoroughly, and they know that in their
case the highest priced is the cheapest.
This superiority of crucible-steel has been doubted, because the
claim appeared to rest solely upon the statements of steel-makers,
and not to have any scientific basis; there is, however, a scientific
basis for the fact. Given three samples of steel of say the following
composition:
Open-
Crucible.
hearth. Bessemer.
Carbon 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Open-
Crucible.
hearth. Bessemer.
Silicon .10 .10 .10
Phosphorus .05 .05 .05
Sulphur .02 .02 .02
Copper, arsenic,
traces
etc.
Why should there be any difference in the strength of the three?
In mere tensile strength in an untempered bar the difference might
not be very great, although all experienced persons would expect the
crucible to show the highest; but it is not necessary to make the
claim, because we have not enough tests of crucible-steel to enable
us to establish a mean, and one or two tests are insufficient to
establish a rule in any case.
There have been made, however, hundreds of tests of hardened
and tempered samples by the most expert persons, with one
invariable result: the crucible-steel is incomparably finer and stronger
than the others, and the open-hearth is almost invariably stronger
and finer than the Bessemer.
Unfortunately for the argument these tests cannot be recorded so
as to be intelligible to the non-expert, because we cannot tabulate
the result of the touch of the expert hand or the observation of the
experienced eye.
For a time it was popular to call these differences mysteries, and
so let them pass; this, however, was not satisfactory, and the
question was studied carefully for the physical reasons which must
exist.
Much thought led to the conclusion that the reason lay with the
three elements oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen; they are known to
exist in greater or less quantity in all iron and steel.
It is known that the presence of oxygen beyond certain small
limits produces red-shortness and general weakness; it is probably a
much more hurtful element than phosphorus or sulphur, but no
quantitative method for its determination has been worked out; there
is an effort now being made to develop a simple and expeditious
oxygen determination, and it is to be hoped that it will be successful.
In the crucible no more oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen can get
into the steel than is contained in the material charged and in the
atmosphere of the crucible, or than may penetrate the walls of the
crucible during melting. In the open hearth the process is an
oxidizing one, and besides the charge is swept continuously by hot
flames containing all of these elements.
In the Bessemer process the conditions are worse still, as these
elements are all blown through the whole mass of the steel.
We know the effect of oxygen and how to eliminate it practically.
Percy gives the effects of nitrogen as causing hardness and
extreme brittleness, and giving to iron or steel a brassy lustre. Such
a brassy lustre may be seen frequently in open-hearth or Bessemer
steel, and occasionally in crucible-steel. When seen in crucible-steel
it is known to be due to the fact that the cap of the crucible became
displaced, exposing the contents to the direct action of the flame. Of
the effect of hydrogen we know less; there is no reason apparent
why it may not be as potent as the others.
Ammonia in sufficient quantity to be detected by the nose has
often been observed in open-hearth and Bessemer steel.
To settle the nitrogen question Prof. John W. Langley developed
some years ago a very delicate and accurate process for the
determination of nitrogen even in minute quantities; the process was
tedious and expensive, so that it was not adapted for daily use; it
involved the careful elimination of nitrogen from all of the reagents to
be used, requiring several days’ work, in each case to prepare for
only a few nitrogen determinations.
By this process it was found, in every one of many trials, that
crucible-steel contained the least amount of nitrogen, open-hearth
steel the next greater quantity, and Bessemer steel the greatest
amount. He found no exceptions to this. For many years great efforts
had been made both in Europe and in the United States to make by
the Bessemer or the open-hearth process a cheap melting-product
to be used in the crucible instead of the expensive irons which so far
have proved to be necessary to give the best results.
There appeared to be no difficulty in making a material as pure
chemically, or purer, than the most famous irons in the world, and
this material was urged upon the crucible-steel makers. Careful tests
of such material failed to produce the required article; in fact it was
demonstrated over and over again that an inferior wrought iron
would produce a stronger steel than this very pure steel melting-
material, and crucible-steel makers were compelled to adhere to the
more costly irons to produce their finer grades.
Prof. Langley determined the nitrogen in a given quantity of open-
hearth and Bessemer steel; this same material was then melted in a
crucible, and it was found that the resulting ingots contained nearly
as much nitrogen as the original charge. The quantity was reduced
slightly; still this steel contained more nitrogen than any other sample
of crucible-steel that he had tested. The physical test of this trial
steel showed the usual weakness of the Bessemer or open-hearth
steel, as compared to crucible-steel.
The next step was to try to get rid of nitrogen by the use of some
affinity, as oxygen is removed by manganese. Boron and titanium
seemed to be the most feasible elements; boron appeared to offer
less chance of success, and titanium was selected. A ferro-titanium
containing six per cent of titanium was imported from Europe at
some expense. As the most careful and exacting analyses of this
material failed to reveal a trace of titanium, it was not used.
After many futile efforts Langley succeeded, by means of electric
heat, in reducing rutile and producing a small quantity of an alloy of
iron and titanium. A trial of this alloy, although not conclusive, led to
the belief that such an alloy could be used successfully to eliminate
nitrogen; but as its cost, about two dollars a pound, was prohibitory
of any commercial use, the subject was not pursued farther.
Although we know these elements only as gases, there is no
reason to suppose that their atoms may not be as potent, when
added to steel, as atoms of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, or any other
substance.
Such are the facts for crucible-steel as far as they are known; it is
vastly more expensive than any other kind of steel, yet for the
present it holds its own unique and valuable place in the arts.
For all tools requiring a fine edge for cutting purposes, such as
lathe-tools, drills, taps, reamers, milling-cutters, axes, razors, pocket-
knives, needles, graving-tools, etc.; for fine dies where sharp outline
and great endurance are required; for fine springs and fine
machinery parts and fine files and saws, and for a hundred similar
uses, crucible-cast steel still stands pre-eminent, and must remain
so until some genius shall remove from the cheaper steels the
elements that unfit them for these purposes.
As stated before, crucible-steel is divided into fifteen or more
different tempers, ranging in carbon from .50 to 1.50. Each of these
tempers has its specific uses, and a few will be pointed out in a
general way.
.50 to .60 carbon is best adapted for hot work and
for battering-tools.
.60 to .70 carbon for hot work, battering-tools, and
tools of dull edge.
.70 to .80 carbon for battering-tools, cold-sets, and
some forms of reamers and taps.
.80 to .90 carbon for cold-sets, hand-chisels, drills,
taps, reamers, and dies.
.90 to 1.00 carbon for chisels, drills, dies, axes,
knives, and many similar purposes.
1.00 to 1.10 carbon for axes, hatchets, knives,
large lathe-tools, and many kinds of dies and drills if
care be used in tempering them.
1.10 to 1.50 carbon for lathe-tools, graving-tools,
scribers, scrapers, little drills, and many similar
purposes.
 The best all-around tool-steel is found between .90 and 1.10
carbon; steel that can be adapted safely and successfully to more
uses than any other temper.
At somewhere from .90 to 1.00 carbon, iron appears to be
saturated with carbon, giving the highest efficiency in tools and the
highest results in the testing-machine except for compressive
strains. More will be said upon this point in treating of the carbon-
line.
Much more could be said about the uses for the different tempers
of steel; it would be easy to write out in great detail the exact carbon
which experience has shown to be best adapted to any one of
hundreds of different uses, but it would only be confusing and
misleading to a great many people.
It is within the experience of every steel-maker that men are just
as variable as steel, and the successful steel-maker must familiarize
himself with the personal equations of his patrons. One man on the
sunny side of a street may be making an excellent kind of tool from a
certain grade and temper of steel, and be perfectly happy and
prosperous in its use. His competitor on the shady side of the street
may fail in trying to use the same steel for the same purpose and
condemn it utterly.
The know it all agent will condemn the latter man with an
intimation that his ears are too long, and so lose his trade. The
tactful agent will supply him with steel a temper higher or a temper
lower, until he hits upon the right one, and so will retain both men on
his list; and both men will turn out equally good products.
Few men know their own personal equations, and the best way
for a steel-user to do is to tell the steel-maker what he wants to
accomplish, and put upon him the responsibility of selecting the best
temper.
It costs no more to make and to provide one temper than
another; therefore the one inducement of the steel-maker is to give
his patron that which is best adapted to his use. This plan puts all of
the responsibility upon the steel-maker, just where it ought to be,
because he should know more about the adaptability of his steel
than any other person.

BESSEMER STEEL.
Bessemer steel is probably the cheapest of all grades of steel;
that is to say, it can be made so rapidly, so continuously, and in such
enormous quantities that a greater output per dollar invested can be
made than by either of the other processes. Again, the work is
controlled and operated by machinery to a much greater extent than
in the other processes; therefore the cost of labor per ton of product
both for skilled and unskilled labor is less than in the crucible or the
open-hearth method.
This being the case, it might be inferred that the result would be
the eventual driving out of all other steels by this, the cheapest. This
would be the inevitable result if Bessemer steel were as well adapted
to all purposes as either of the other kinds of steel; there are
limitations which prevent this.
The source of heat in the Bessemer process is in the combustion
of the elements of the charge, there is no extraneous source of heat;
therefore, if the heat be too cold, there is no way to remedy it unless
it be by the addition of ferro-silicon and more blowing; if it be too hot,
it may be allowed to stand a few minutes to cool. Still in either case
the remedy is somewhat doubtful. This limitation must not be taken
as being fatal to good work, for in skilful hands such cases are rare,
and the product is generally fully up to the standard of good work.
As there is no known sure way of stopping the blow at a given
point in the operation to produce a steel of required carbon, it is
usual to blow clear down, that is, to burn out all of the carbon
practically and then to re-carbonize by the addition of spiegel-eisen
or ferro-manganese. It is necessary, also, to add the manganese in
one of these forms to remove the oxygen introduced during the blow;
this must be done quickly, and all accomplished before the metal
becomes too cold for pouring into ingots.
 So little time for reactions is available that it is doubtful if the
material is ever quite as homogeneous as it can be made by either
of the other processes.
Notwithstanding these limitations, which are not mentioned to
throw doubt upon the process, but merely to inform readers fully so
as to enable them to judge rightly as to what may be expected,
enormous quantities of good, reliable Bessemer steel are made to
meet many requirements.
For good, serviceable, cheap rails Bessemer steel stands pre-
eminent, and if it found no other use it would be difficult to
overestimate the benefit to the world of this one great success.
Bessemer steel is used largely for a great number of purposes,
Bessemer billets being now as regular an article of commerce as pig
iron.
For wire for all ordinary purposes; for skelp to be worked into
butt-welded and lap-welded tubing; for wire nails, shafting,
machinery-steel, tank-plates, and for many other uses, Bessemer
steel has absorbed the markets almost entirely.
For common cutlery, files, shovels, picks, battering-tools, and
many such uses it contests the market with open-hearth steel; and
while many engineers now specify that their structural shapes,
plates, beams, angles, etc., must be of open-hearth steel, there are
many eminent engineers who see no need for this discrimination,
they being satisfied that if their requirements are met the process by
which they are met is a matter of indifference.

OPEN-HEARTH STEEL.
As in the Bessemer process, so in the open-hearth, carbon and
silicon are burned out, phosphorus is removed on the basic hearth,
and the sulphur of the charge remains in the steel. During the
operation oxygen and nitrogen are absorbed by the steel, although
not quite so largely as in the Bessemer process, so that practically
the chemical limitations are the same in each.
 The open-hearth reductions are much slower than in the
Bessemer, each heat requiring from five to eight hours for its
completion; the furnace must be operated by a skilled man of good
judgment, so that more time and more skilled labor per ton of
product are required than in the Bessemer, and the making of an
equal quality as cheaply in the open hearth is problematical. The
open hearth has extraneous sources of heat at the command and
under the control of the operator, and there need be no cold heats,
and no too hot heats.
The time for reactions is much longer, and for this reason they
ought to be more complete, and they are so in good hands; yet it is a
fact that, as the operation is a quiet one compared to the Bessemer,
and not nearly so powerful and energetic, a careless or unskilful
operator may produce in the open hearth an uneven result that is
quite as bad as anything that can be brought out of a Bessemer
converter. The process that eliminates the human factor has not yet
been invented.
For fine boiler-plates, armor-plates, and gun parts open-hearth
steel has won its place as completely as has the crucible for fine-tool
steel or the Bessemer for rails.
For all intermediate products there is a continued race and keen
competition, so that it is impossible to draw any hard and fast line
between the products of the three processes where they approach
each other; the only clear distinctions are at the other extremes.
Owing to the power to hold and manipulate a heat in the open-
hearth it is safe to say that it is superior to the Bessemer in the
manufacture of steel castings; and owing to its much greater
cheapness it is difficult for the crucible to compete with it at all in this
branch of manufacture.
In conclusion of this chapter it is safe to say that in good hands
these processes are all good, and each has its own special function
to perform.
 III.
ALLOY STEELS AND THEIR USES.

In addition to the four general kinds of steel treated of in the last

chapter there are a number of steels in the market which contain
other metals, and which may be termed properly alloy steels, to
distinguish them from carbon steel, or the regular steels of world-
wide use which depend upon the quantity of carbon present for their
properties. The most generally known of the alloy steels is the so-
called Self-hardening steel.
Self-hardening steel is so called because when it is heated to the
right temperature,—about a medium orange color,—and is then
allowed to cool in the air, it becomes very hard. This steel is so easily
strained that it is impossible, as a rule, to quench it in water without
cracking it. It may be quenched in a blast of air without cracking, and
so be made much harder than if it be allowed to cool more slowly in
a quiet atmosphere. If it be quenched in oil or water, it will become
excessively hard, much harder than when quenched in air, and it will
almost invariably be cracked, or if it be not cracked it will be so
excessively brittle as to be of little use.
Self-hardened steel is so hard in what may be called its natural
condition, that is, in ordinary bars, that it cannot be machined, drilled,
planed, or turned in a lathe.
By keeping it in an annealing-furnace at about bright orange heat
for about twenty-four to thirty-six hours, and then covering it with hot
sand or ashes in the furnace, and allowing about the same time for it
to cool, it may be annealed pretty thoroughly so that it may be
machined readily.
When annealed in this way and formed into cutters of irregular
shape, or dies, it has been found so far not to be economical or well
adapted to such work, so that up to the present time annealing is
more of a scientific than a useful fact.
Self-hardened steel has the useful property of retaining its
hardness when heated almost to redness; therefore it may be used
as a lathe or similar cutter upon hard work, such as cutting cast iron
and other metals, at a much higher speed than is possible with
ordinary steel, which would be softened by the heat generated by the
high speed. This property makes self-hardened steel very useful and
economical for many purposes.
Self-hardened steel is an alloy of iron, carbon, tungsten, and
manganese, and some brands contain chromium in addition to
these, and it is claimed, and probably truly, that the chromium
improves the quality of the steel.
It was supposed for a long time that tungsten was the hardener
that gave to self-hardened steel its peculiar properties. By means of
an open hearth, steel was produced containing about 3% tungsten
and little carbon and manganese. This steel worked like any mild
steel, except that it was hot-short and difficult to forge. It was not
hard and had no hardening properties; that is, it did not harden in the
ordinary sense when quenched in water. The addition of carbon to
this steel, keeping the manganese low, produced a steel very difficult
to work, which would harden like ordinary steel when quenched, and
which had no self-hardening properties whatever. The addition of
2½% to 3% of manganese to this steel produced self-hardening steel
having the usual properties.
Manganese, then, is the metal that gives the self-hardening
property, and this might have been anticipated by considering the
properties of Hadfield’s manganese steel, which, when it contains
above 7% manganese, cannot be annealed so that it can be
machined or drawn into wire. From this it might be inferred that
tungsten is not a necessary constituent of self-hardened steel; that it
performs an important function will be shown presently. Tests of the
iron-tungsten alloy low in carbon gave only a small increase in
strength above ordinary low cast steel containing little carbon; it was
difficult and troublesome to work, and more expensive than the
common steels, so that its production presented no advantages.
When carbonized, it was fine-grained and could be made
exceedingly hard; it was brittle, and compared to very ordinary cast
steel comparatively worthless.
In self-hardened steel tungsten is the mordant that holds the
carbon in solution and enables the steel to retain its hardness at
comparatively high temperatures. That it does hold the carbon in
solution may be proved in a moment by a beautiful test, first
observed by Prof. John W. Langley.
When a piece of carbon steel is pressed against a rapidly running
emery wheel, there is given off a shower of brilliant sparks which
flash out in innumerable white, tiny stars of great beauty; it is
accepted that this brilliancy is due to the explosive combustion of
particles of carbon.
When a steel containing as much as three per cent of tungsten is
pressed against the wheel, the entire absence of these brilliant
flashes is at once noticeable, and if there be an occasional little flash
it only serves to emphasize the absence of the myriads.
Instead there is an emission of a comparatively small number of
dull particles, and there is clinging to the wheel closely a heavy band
of a deep, rich red color. This red streak is distinctive of the presence
of tungsten.
By testing various pieces it was soon observed that different
quantities of tungsten gave different sizes of red streaks; as tungsten
decreased the width of the band diminished and the number and
brilliancy of carbon sparks increased. As little as .10 tungsten will
show a fine red line amidst a brilliant display of sparks, and it soon
became possible to determine so closely by the streak the quantity
of tungsten present that the ordinary analyses for tungsten became
unnecessary, except in occasional important cases where analysis
was used merely to confirm the testimony of the wheel.
Self-hardening steel, then, is a steel which, owing to the
presence of manganese and tungsten, hardens when quenched in
quiet air, and which retains its hardness almost up to a red heat.
 It may be forged between the temperatures from orange to bright
orange; it cannot be worked safely outside of this range. The more
quickly it is quenched the harder it will be; and it may be annealed so
that it can be machined readily. Therefore it is not self-hardening; it
simply has all of the properties of carbon steel modified profoundly
by tungsten and manganese. If a piece of this steel will not harden
sufficiently by cooling in the air quietly, that difficulty may be
remedied by cooling it in an air-blast; if quenching in an air-blast will
not give sufficient hardness, the steel had better be rejected, for
quenching in oil or water means almost certain destruction.
As stated before, the range of temperature in which self-
hardened steel can be forged safely is much smaller than for a high-
carbon steel; it is harder at this heat than carbon steel and not so
plastic, so that it requires more care and more heats in working it to
tool-shapes.
This steel is so sensitive that it often occurs in redressing it that it
will crumble at a heat that was all right in the first working. This
difficulty may be remedied by first cutting off the shattered part with a
sharp tool,—it must be cut hot,—then heating the piece up to nearly
a lemon color, heating it through without soaking it in the fire, and
then allowing it to cool slowly in a warm, dry place. After this
treatment the steel may be heated and worked as at first. This
treatment does not anneal the steel soft, because the heat is not
continued long enough, and the cooling is not sufficiently slow; it
does relieve the strains in the steel, so that it is plastic and
malleable.
This treatment is good in any high steel which has become
refractory from previous working.
Self-hardened steel is not as strong in the hardened condition as
good high-carbon steel; it has not been used successfully for cutting
chilled cast iron, for instance. If made hard enough to cut a chill, it is
so brittle that the cutting-edge will crumble instead of cutting; if the
temper be let down enough to stop the crumbling, the steel will be
softer than the chill, and the edge will curl up instead of cutting.
 Owing to the retention of hardness at a higher temperature than
carbon steel will bear this steel is capable of doing a great amount of
work at high speed, so that for much lathe-work it is cheap at almost
any price.
Owing to its brittle, friable nature its use is limited to the simpler
forms of tools, and to a narrower range of work than is possible with
carbon steel.

CHROME STEEL.
An alloy of chromium with carbon steel has been before the
public for many years, and greater claims have been made for it than
experience seems to justify. Chrome steel is fine-grained and very
hard in the hardened state, and it will do a large amount of work at
the first dressing; upon redressing it deteriorates much more rapidly
than carbon steel and becomes inferior; it is believed that this is due
to a rapid oxidation of the chromium.
It is claimed for it that it will endure much higher heats without
injury than carbon steels of the same temper. Intending purchasers
will do well to satisfy themselves upon these points before investing
too heavily.

SILICON STEEL.
Steel containing two to three per cent of silicon was put upon the
markets, and great claims were made for it.
It is exceedingly fine-grained and hardens very hard; it is brittle,
much more liable to crack in hardening than ordinary steel, and it is
not nearly so strong as carbon steel.
It is made cheaply enough as far as melting goes, but it may not
be melted dead, and therefore sound, because long-continued high
heat will destroy it; therefore the ingots are more honeycombed than
well-melted carbon steel ingots. The steel will not bear what is
known as a welding-heat in steel-working; it is hot-short; for this
reason the bars are more seamy than is usual in carbon steel.
Added to this the hot-shortness makes it so difficult to work that the
labor cost is high. Altogether, then, silicon steel is expensive, and it
presents no extra good qualities in compensation.

MANGANESE STEEL.
The glassy hardness, brittleness, and friability of ferro-
manganese and of spiegel-eisen are well known; these are products
of the blast-furnace, and the manganese ranges all the way from say
10% up to 80%.
Steel containing from 1% to 3% of manganese is about as brittle
and almost as unworkable as spiegel-eisen, and a fair deduction
would be that manganese above very small limits will not form any
useful alloy with iron. Many a general law of nature has been based
upon much more meagre data and has been announced with a great
flourish of trumpets; such discoveries are usually heard of no more
after the first blare has died away.
R. A. Hadfield, of Sheffield, England, is an inquirer who wants to
know, and who is willing to travel the whole road in order to find out.
Hadfield discovered that an alloy of iron and manganese containing
from 7% to 20% of manganese was a compound possessing many
remarkable properties. This alloy is now known as manganese steel.
Manganese steel is both hard and tough to a degree not found in
any other metal or alloy.
It is so hard and strong that it cannot be machined with the best
of tools made of the finest steel. Castings made of it may be battered
into all sorts of shapes as completely as if they were made of the
mildest dead-soft steel; still they are too hard to be machined.
The ordinary hardening process toughens this steel instead of
hardening it to brittleness.
This steel is non-magnetic, and this property alone would give it
exceedingly great value if the steel could only be worked into the
required shapes.
 Up to this time all attempts to anneal this steel have failed, and
this persistent hardness is the best proof that manganese is the real
hardener in self-hardened steel. So far carbon and manganese have
not been separated in this steel or in any other. Persistent attempts
have been made to produce manganese steel low in carbon, but all
have been failures, because any operation that burned out the
carbon took the manganese with it. The hope was that a non-
magnetic alloy might be produced that would be soft enough to work.
This may yet be accomplished, and if it should be another great step
in the arts will have been taken.
Hard, tough, strong, non-magnetic—what great things may not
come out of this when it has been worked out finally?
Since this was written carbonless manganese has been
produced which is claimed to contain 98% + of manganese and no
carbon, but at present it is sold at $1 per pound. If it can be produced
more cheaply, it may lead to a workable non-magnetic alloy of iron
and manganese which may prove to be of great value to electricians
and to watchmakers.
The uses of manganese steel are large and growing, and it must
be regarded as having an established and a prominent place.
It has been stated that in self-hardened steel and in manganese
steel manganese is the hardener; it should be borne in mind that
carbon is always present, that it is the one great hardener, but its
hardening property in the absence of manganese depends directly
upon rapidity of cooling. By rapid cooling steel containing carbon is
made harder than glass, and by slow cooling it may be made softer
and more ductile than ordinary wrought iron.
Self-hardened steel may be annealed so that it can be machined,
but it is by no means as soft and ductile as well-annealed carbon
steel. Manganese steel has not been annealed at all; it cannot be
annealed by any of the well-known annealing processes; some new
way of doing it must be discovered. Therefore it is proper to say that
the peculiar hardening properties of these two steels are due to
manganese.