Andrew Wadge is hungry for science

Engaging the public in science has been a holy grail for many scientists in the past couple of decades. Trying to get our voices heard amongst the media babble is not easy with the constant clamour and glamour of a celeb-focused media. Compared with this fast-moving daily whirl, research and policy making is a slow business.

Not so long ago, expert scientific committees met in secret and advised ministers on policies affecting the food we all eat. Secrecy bred mistrust and, following a series of food incidents, there was a collapse in consumer confidence in the UK. Now, the whole process, from risk assessment by experts through to final decision-making by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board, is open to public scrutiny and challenge – and is all the better for it.

At the FSA we have a number of means of meeting the demand for information at the speed the media and public need. We have websites such as food.gov.uk, which includes details of our science programme, regular contact with our stakeholders, forums and, indeed, media outlets. But a blog is both a faster way of communicating scientific ideas and explanations and a way of encouraging people to engage with the Agency. 

When avian influenza was discovered at the Bernard Matthews plant in Suffolk earlier this year, I explained why it’s not a food safety issue

Bird flu and GM
Starting a blog (http://www.fsascience.net/) was a natural progression for me as I’m passionate about engaging the public with science. The blog lets the public – and those with a professional interest in food – know what I and my scientist colleagues at the Agency are up to, what the emerging issues are, and how we propose handling them.

Take bird flu. When avian influenza was discovered at the Bernard Matthews plant in Suffolk earlier this year, I explained why it’s not a food safety issue (flu viruses rely on receptors in the body to cause illness and those that flu latch onto are generally found in the respiratory tract). Several people expressed concern about how they could protect themselves from risks. In my reply I took the opportunity to remind people of the importance of food hygiene and safe handling of raw meat in the kitchen – the blog is another useful route for disseminating our advice.

Unsurprisingly, topics such as genetic modification (GM) and organics attract some of the more passionate responses, which can be challenging. In September, publication of some Agency-funded research on colours in food and hyperactivity in children drew 15 comments in 24 hours and over 30 within a few days. And it’s a range of people who comment: the public seeking explanations and commenting on my posts; policy makers and others already engaged in a particular debate, such as Peter Melchett of the Soil Association; and scientists and other bloggers, such as Ben Goldacre of the Guardian.

Plaudits
I’m heartened by both the number of visitors to the blog and evaluation by the Hansard Society that runs the Digital Dialogues project, of which my blog is a part.

We’re averaging 12,675 visits a month to it, reaching over 18,000 last month, while the evaluation said it ‘demonstrates how a blog can be used to distribute information and solicit public feedback on a manageable, ongoing basis’; ‘…explaining food science to general and specialist audiences … proved an important factor in the blog’s positive reception.’ Gratifyingly, the blog was also shortlisted for a New Statesman award earlier in the year.

Thick skin
So what’s the downside? Nothing major, but you do need to develop a thick skin. Obviously, the comment: ‘My overriding impression of this blog entry is of anodyne neutrality’ met with a vigorous response! 

The spontaneity of writing and publishing a couple of paragraphs is very different and can be liberating

There is also a real pressure to keep populating the blog with new entries and to respond to others’ contributions. Like anyone with a busy diary, this is another demand that needs to be factored in – one that requires a different mindset. Blog entries are not the same as peer-reviewed articles. The spontaneity of writing and publishing a couple of paragraphs is very different and can be liberating.

But I do welcome this challenge and feel one respondent got it absolutely right, saying: ‘the key, surely, is open debate’.
That to me is what the blog is all about and what will help improve trust in food safety in this country. I do not expect everyone to agree with our assessment of the science and indeed would be alarmed if that were the case – it probably would make it anodyne – but at least everyone has the opportunity to find out more about our work and why we reach the conclusions we do.

Dr Andrew Wadge is Chief Scientist at the Food Standards Agency