How should the media report science? Various pieces in this issue tackle this question from different points of view.

No sooner had a High Court judge spelled out inaccuracies in Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, than Gore himself shared the Nobel Peace Prize ( jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) for his work alerting the public to climate change and what they might do about it. Against this background, Bob Ward and David Whitehouse launch into a furious debate about reporting science. Should all shades of opinion be reported, irrespective of whether they misrepresent the evidence? Bob Ward argues that the press should be responsible in its science reporting. David Whitehouse plumps for freedom of speech – even if that means being wrong.

Michael Norton and his co-authors are worried about the same issue. In the face of the IPCC’s consensus on climate change, they say, some UK media still help sceptics misrepresent their contrarian opinions as science. The authors look to learned societies to protect the integrity of scientific information, and to scientists with media-friendly faces to present their findings to the public.

Tom Lowe, on the other hand, thinks that climate scientists who cross the threshold between science and the media, politics and public decision-making, are losing credibility. He fears they are turning a legitimate, complex and long-term concern into something of a fad, while failing to inspire the masses into action. He argues that science should be separated from policy.

When a scientific story becomes political, dealing with the media is inevitably stressful. During the foot and mouth outbreak this summer, Monica Winstanley and Matt Goode experienced what happened when the science’s time-scales failed to meet the journalists’ demands. Any aspect of the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright was subject to scrutiny, and the media’s interest has persisted well after the publication of the independent reports. 

Science and politics are inextricably intertwined in another question we take up in this issue: whether or not to replace Trident, the UK nuclear submarine. The government has voted in principle to replace it. However, the specifics of the weapons delivery system have not yet been decided, nor has a detailed budget been worked out for the replacement.

Critics of the system have demanded more public debate on the issue. In the SPATalk, Steven Haines, arguing for replacement, maintains that nuclear weapons have had a stabilising effect on international relations; whereas Nick Ritchie believes Britain’s decision to renew the system will do more harm than good.

Nuclear matters – civilian, this time – feature in another argument. At issue is the quality of the government’s public consultation on the future of nuclear power. Malcolm Wicks asserts that it was open, fair and full, while Pete Roche charges the government with misleading the public.

The government’s desire to revitalise public engagement through citizens’ juries takes a knock from Matt Qvortrup, who alleges that there is no evidence that they work. It is, he writes, ‘not surprising that citizens’ juries recently have received the stamp of approval by the Communist Party in the People’s Republic of China!’

Wendy Barnaby, Editor

Do you wish to comment on something you have read in Science & Public Affairs?
Email your letters to the Editor

Find out how you can join the BA's free network of supporters

A printable version of Science & Public Affairs is available here (PDF, 883KB)