Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Official: scientists no longer need fear the press
9 July 2009
The days when science was blighted by a press interested only in "scare stories" are over, according to the Science Minister.
Most coverage of science by the media is now balanced, accurate and engaging, Lord Drayson said.
His comments came as he confirmed that public engagement would be measured and rewarded in the forthcoming research excellence framework (see above).
But some scientists who cite the "fear-fest" that characterised coverage of the genetic modification (GM) debate and the MMR vaccine as a reason for not working with the media are likely to be unimpressed.
In a debate staged at the World Conference of Science Journalists last week in London, Lord Drayson argued that the British media were the "best in the world" at covering science.
This new maturity was a result of a "period of reflection" after the GM and MMR furores, the formation of the Science Media Centre, which brings scientists and journalists together with the aim of helping scientists shape the news, and other factors.
"I believe the key to this is that science journalists are in charge of the story and not general journalists," he said.
The minister cited as positive examples of reporting the treatment of the human-animal hybrid embryo debate, the swine flu pandemic and the switch-on of the Large Hadron Collider. He also cited figures showing that public trust in scientists was increasing.
"Sensational science reporting is fine as long as it is accurate and it is good science," he said. "We need good reporting that also transmits the 'wow factor' of science ... We need a society that is awestruck by science, not dumbstruck by it."
Lord Drayson's positive view was countered by John Martin, an expert in heart disease from University College London, who argued that the headlines and sensationalism in science journalism could have an "incredibly negative" effect.
He told of having to inform 160 people who had written to him in the hope of getting treatment that their expectations had been "raised inappropriately" by press accounts of his work.
Professor Martin argued that such sensationalism was the result of a "structural problem" in the media caused by profit motives driving the news agenda. He also accused some scientists of hyping their own stories to receive coverage.
"I think scientists are driven to overexaggerate the possibilities and their results in order to get limited funding," he said.
zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
Lord Drayson is an idiot, and this story is utter cock. The Express, today, is trying to make a story of the MMR-autism thing once again. The DM is trying to wage a war against cervarix. The BBC was worried about the creation of a black hole. The media is still full of idiots who are utterly incapable of anything more than copying and pasting from press releases. And Lord Drayson is an idiot.
Someone organise a meeting between Lord Drayson and Ben Goldacre, quickly! Goldacre must be credited with drawing a wide audience's attention (through Guardian articles, tweets and blogging, amongst other media) to precisely how wrong Drayson is.
He obviously didn't read all the nonsense in the papers yesterday about scientists creating sperm from stem cells!
Nope, not more problems at all with scare stories in the media. http://tr.im/rz41
Could someone bring this Daily Express article, published today, to Lord Drayson's attention? It's another MMR scare article: http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/112286/Doctor-s-MMR-fears I blogged about Lord Drayson's frankly on-crack statements myself: http://is.gd/1skSQ The thing is, Drayson is a successful engineer, businessman and Ph.D scientist. If you were looking for someone to be a Minister of Science and Technology, you couldn't ask for someone better qualified for the job! So this sort of thing from him is deeply, deeply disappointing.
Meanwhile back on Earth apart from the Daily Express article mentioned by several people above, there have been the usual rubbish about all kinds of science from the media. http://bit.ly/rGXwE and http://bit.ly/j1y9D are just two examples
"But some scientists who cite the "fear-fest" that characterised coverage of the genetic modification (GM) debate and the MMR vaccine as a reason for not working with the media are likely to be unimpressed." Understatement of the year.
'"I believe the key to this is that science journalists are in charge of the story and not general journalists," he said.' That'll be the key alright... http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html :D
Every day there are outlandish claims in the press that a certain food, drink, or substance provides a miraculous cure to, or prevents the development of, a cornucopia of ailments and diseases. Often these headlines are constructed by sensationalist journalists from dodgy press releases. Often these headlines contradict all prior scientific evidence and are based on incomplete or unfair experiments. They serve only to confuse the general public and create demand for a given product. This is not balanced, accurate or engaging.
Disagree. Proof: http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/112286/Doctor-s-MMR-fears
Drayson is either and idiot or getting backhanders from papers to spew out this rubbish. As other contributors have already said, the way the press generally misreport science, (and there are a few, but sadly too few exceptions), is a scandal and an outrage. Balanced, accurate and engaging, my arse.
Lord Drayson is seriously msiniformed which for a high profile and vocal minister is very disheartening. However I would agree that ventures like the Science Media Centre are making an effort to improve science communication. But the fact that they are needed now, and in the future, is surely evidence that science reporting at the moment isn't all OK. The only problem is that journalists have to choose to go to the SMC for help - for some with high workloads and tight deadlines it might still be too much effort. But I think that scientists moaning about how they won't get involved in public engagement, or talk to the media because of fears of misunderstanding and misrepresentation is cowardly! Science, now more than ever, is for the people - not for other scientists. Funding is public money, and there should be a responsiblity for scientists to strive to communicate their research to the public (and journalists) in as unambiguous and comprehensible way as possible. Therefore its a positive thing to introduce this into the research excellence framework. The days of scientists hiding away in darkened labs are over, and they must be encouraged to interact with the rest of the world!
What is needed are more mediators: people with real experience of working in science AND real experience of working in the press/media. Scientists are often very bad at presenting their work; even when they're good communicators, they're usually not aware of the tips and tricks that can boost the chances of information being reported accurately by the press. It doesn't help that press and PR departments are often staffed by people without scientific backgrounds. There is a way for science and the media to work together but it requires each side to understand the other and that can only come about from a system which empowers communications professionals who understand both sides.
Plenty of people, my friends included, have changed their behaviours because of the nonsense spouted in the press about what will/won't kill you this week. It's not just printed in papers, misinformation is out there in our culture and is affecting people. We need to breed a culture of questioning what we read and demanding evidence.
@Anon said: "We need to breed a culture of questioning what we read and demanding evidence." Even something as simple as printing references to the source material would be a start. URLs would be preferable.
@ Sean Ellis - couldn't agree more, something there is no excuse for not doing now most mainstream news is online.