Science and journalism

The Science Media Centre - based at the Royal Institution in London - is one of the best resources for any journalist reporting a science story.

We've invited its Director, Fiona Fox, to make regular contributions to the College of Journalism Discussion pages - on science, the media and the misunderstandings that, from time to time, arise.

Here's her first post: 

It's all happening with science in the media.

No sooner were we back after the Christmas break than the BBC Trust announced that its third Impartiality Review will focus on science.

Then came the publication of 'Science and the Media - Securing the Future', the report of a six-month working group, set up by the Science Minister Lord Drayson, that I chaired.

And finally came the glossy launch of the BBC's Year of Science, prompted by the Royal Society's 350th celebrations.

The timing of the announcement of the Impartiality Review couldn't have been better for my report, with several people congratulating us for persuading the Trust to tackle science. Of course there was no connection whatsoever but some rumours should just be left to spread.

And since we are credited with such influence I thought I would make myself even more useful and lay out the issues that the Trust should address in its year-long review.

Probably good to start by saying that our report finds science coverage in the BBC to be in pretty rude health - especially in news.

Research carried out by Cardiff University School of Journalism for our group scotches some of the myths about a crisis in science reporting and reveals that there is more of it than ever, the status of the specialist science reporters is greater than ever and the appetite for science healthier than ever.

After a year that will be remembered as much for Nuttgate, UEA Gate and swine flu as it will for MPs' expenses, those who continue to insist that science is in a ghetto are starting to sound seriously out of date.

But that doesn't mean there is nothing to fix and the BBC Trust chose science over several other options because of growing concerns around the reporting of controversial stories like MMR, GM crops and climate change.

Doubtless those concerns differ depending on who is raising them, but I can certainly highlight some of the main issues that the science community would like to see addressed by the Trust.

Central to these is the feeling that the vast majority of general news reporters, editors and presenters struggle to master some of the basic principles of science.

The notion that the media is dominated by arts and humanities graduates is prevalent and many feel that a double standard is applied with senior journalists and presenters being almost proud to admit to no knowledge of science in a way that they would never do with politics or economics.

Almost all the really bad examples of science coverage from the BBC in recent years involve non-science journalists deciding to splash on some study that hasn't even be published, or making claims of major breakthroughs based on a single study that hasn't been replicated, or using percentages rather than actual numbers to scare us all witless about some new risk.

The BBC's College of Journalism is already planning to expand its science training for non-specialists and anything the Trust could do to make sure that editors and presenters do the training would be very welcome. They would also do well to look at some novel ways of populating their newsrooms with a few more science graduates.

Another thing the Trust will have to grapple with is the thorny issue of 'journalistic balance'.

Up there with the other sacred cows of 'objectivity' and 'impartiality', 'balance' works for journalism but is very problematic for science.

Perhaps because we live with a system of adversarial politics, the notion of getting both 'sides' into every interview has defined the BBC's news coverage. I know of a former senior health reporter on the BBC who battled with his editors for months during the MMR debate after being told that every package must include a spokesperson from the anti-MMR camp.

He argued that to do so was to distort the real balance of debate in which 99.99% of all experts believed this vaccine was safe compared to a handful of critics expressing fears.

The same is true on climate change.

I am not with those scientists who call for the censorship of sceptics and I believe they should get their say on the airwaves. But the idea that every time climate researchers publish a new study in Nature they should have to do five rounds with a sceptic is just lazy.

The irony is that we would learn much more about the real uncertainties in climate science if we subjected mainstream researchers to some good old fashioned journalistic scrutiny than we do from these endless spats.

If the public does not choose to take action on climate change, vaccinate their children or support GM crops, then so be it - that's called democracy.

But if, as polls show, the public believe that scientists are split down the middle on these issues then journalism has failed us. There is dissent on these issues and it should feature in the media, but in a way that makes it very clear where the weight of scientific evidence falls.

Linked to this is the whole issue of weighing evidence over opinion and, again, I would like to see some guidance coming from the Trust about the need for journalists to make clear which stories and guests are voicing opinions and which are presenting the scientific evidence.

One of my lowest points came when I was asked by the BBC to find an eminent vaccine expert to debate MMR with the actress who had played the mother of an autistic child in a dramatization of the Andrew Wakefield story.

Those who know me know that I'm a big fan of people with strong opinions and a clear world view, but I do think we need to be clear about the distinction between fact and opinion when making decisions on these big issues.

So there you go - a few issues for the BBC Trust to consider.

Now if by happy coincidence some of these appear on the Trust's work plan to be announced in spring then all well and good ... but from now on I'm charging!

Fiona Fox is Director of the Science Media Centre and author of Science in the Media: Securing the Future.