20101201_B2
Source: BBC2
URL 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo
URL 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQu3v10yUE&NR=1
URL 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTe6WF7X5Yg&NR=1
Date: 01/12/2010
Event: Professor Brian Cox gives the Royal Television Society's Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture on Science - A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy
People:
- Faye Barker: TV presenter, London Tonight
- Professor Brian Cox: Particle physicist and professor at the University of Manchester
- Richard Feynman: Physicist (1918-1988)
- Dr Ben Goldacre: Doctor, psychiatrist and science writer
- Stephen Hawking: Theoretical physicist and cosmologist
- Dr Joy Reidenberg: Comparative anatomist
- Carl Sagan: Astronomer, cosmologist and science populariser (1934-1996)
- Alastair Stewart: TV presenter, London Tonight
- Professor Iain Stewart: Geologist
Brian Cox: Science is enjoying a renaissance in its political and cultural visibility. It was largely protected in the recent Government Spending Review, which speaks not only to its economic value but also to its increasing public profile. And there are many reasons for this. The UK has always been world-leading in science and engineering. And I think the Government now accepts that investment in science is vital to future economic growth. There's also widespread realisation that the grand challenges of our age, such as climate change and the ever-increasing appetite of our planet's rapidly expanding population for clean water and energy requires scientific and engineering solutions as well as political ones.
So our reliance on science, and crucially the scientific way of thinking has therefore, I would argue, never been greater. Now this places a great responsibility on broadcasters, because television is the primary medium for the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the non-specialist public. In a MORI poll conducted in 2004 of adults in the UK aged 16 and above, it was found that 84% received the majority of their information on science from television news, documentaries and other programming.
So since the continuing health of our science base depends on both public, and therefore Government, support, and a steady flow of excited young people who want to become scientists and engineers, television clearly has a big responsibility to get its science programming right. There are, however, occasional incompatibilities between science and television. And in this lecture, I want to explore how these incompatibilities arise and how they might be avoided, given the importance of television to science. And notice that I use the word "occasional" there, because I don't want in any way to imply that there have been serious deficiencies in the history of science broadcasting. I simply don't think that.
See, for me, television played a key role in making me a scientist. And that's partly down to the quality of science programming when I was growing up. Now for me, the greatest of them all was Carl Sagan's Cosmos, thirteen hours of lyrically, emotionally engaging, accurate and polemical broadcasting. Now I want to explore each of those adjectives in this lecture, but first let's take a look at the beginning of Episode One of Cosmos, which for me defines the gold standard to which I personally aspire.
[Clip from 'Cosmos: A Personal Voyage: The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean' (1981).]
Carl Sagan: The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Our contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There's a tingling in the spine, that catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries. The size and the age of the cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding, lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home, the Earth. For the first time, we have the power to decide the fate of our planet and ourselves. This is a time of great danger. But our species is young and curious and brave. It shows much promise. In the last few millennia, we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the cosmos and our place within it. I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: Who wouldn't want to be a scientist, if they saw that when they were 12 years old? So, I think the best way to illustrate these "occasional incompatibilities" is to first define what science is. Now this is not easy, in a historical context, because, to put it bluntly, vast amounts of drivel have been written about the subject by armies of post-modernist philosophers and journalists. But I'm going to ignore all this. Because I concur absolutely with the quote attributed to the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. He said: "The philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." To my mind, science is very simple indeed. Science is the best framework we have for understanding the universe. Now as long as you accept that evidence is more important than opinion, then this is a statement of the obvious. You see, everything we take for granted in the modern world, from atoms to electricity, from our understanding of the stars to medical imaging is down to somebody being curious about the universe, and using the scientific method to investigate it.
The great English biologist Thomas Huxley summarised it beautifully: "Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to fallacy in logic." Now there is no better practitioner of clarity of thought and explanation than Richard Feynman, who as well as being dismissive of philosophy, when it wandered into the scientific arena, was simultaneously and perhaps uniquely one of the greatest scientists and the greatest communicators of the second half of the 20th century. Here is his description of the simple power of the scientific method, taken from his Messenger Lectures, recorded by the BBC in 1964.
[Clip from 'The Character of Physical Law: Seeking New Laws'.]
Richard Feynman: Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then... Now don't laugh, it's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say compare to experiment, or experience. Compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make any difference how smart you are. Who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: "If it disagrees with the experiment, it's wrong (I shouldn't do impressions), and that's all there is to it". Here is our first point of potential friction in science programme-making and reporting. Feynman alluded to it by saying: "It doesn't matter what his name is" - authority. For that matter, the number of people who believe something to be true count for nothing. There are simply statements that are in accord with our observation of nature, and statements that are not. Now how should this rather absolutist-sounding position be reflected in television? Because, you see, television doesn't have the same aims as science. Science is simply the process by which we seek to understand nature. It is utterly a-populist. Its findings respect no social or political norms or religious beliefs. In other words, when it comes to the practice of science, the scientist must never have an eye on the audience, for that would be to fatally compromise the process.
Now contrast that with television. There are customers, viewers, reviewers, consumers. So television must reflect, to an extent, the majority and minority views of the population. But what if the majority of the population doesn't share the scientific view? What if the findings of science run contrary to deeply-held beliefs? What if the accepted scientific position might offend some viewers?
Let me give two examples, one of which is trivial and doesn't matter at all, and one that matters a great deal. The first comes from my own series Wonders of the Solar System, in which an off-hand but factually correct comment about astrology triggered a bit of a spat between myself and some of our more mystical viewers and the BBC.
[Clip from 'Wonders of the Solar System' (2010).]
Brian Cox (in Wonders of the Solar System): Now astrologists have said for years that Jupiter influences our lives. But we now have scientific evidence that this mighty planet does have a significant connection with our own small world. Jupiter is so different to our planet, you know, a big ball of gas, half a billion kilometers away. It's difficult to see how it could have anything to do with us at all. But despite the fact that astrology is a load of rubbish, Jupiter can in fact, have a profound influence on our planet. And it's through a force that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. Gravity.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: Now that, not surprisingly, triggered various outbursts all over the web and directly to the BBC complaints department, including this particular whinge on an astrology Facebook group that decided to fly the flag for the irrational community and spearhead the fight against reason. It said: "His careless assertion was unresearched, unsubstantiated and unscientific. Has he done any empirical studies? Has he explored his birth chart? I have certainly never seen him at an astrology conference..." (fortunately for me) "... or read anything written by him about astrology. This bad science is an abuse of a position of trust in an educational scientific programme funded by the BBC licence payers. BBC guidelines state that astrology must be presented in a balanced way." That isn't, by the way, correct. The BBC's editorial guidelines, fortunately, say no such thing. But how to deal with this? Well, the BBC asked me for a statement and mine was: "I apologise to the astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this New Age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation." It wasn't issued by the BBC complaints department. Instead they said that the professor's comments were his own, not those of the BBC, and were based on his belief that there is insufficient evidence to support astrology.
Now that's a perfectly reasonable response on the surface. In fact, you could argue that it's correct because the broadcaster shouldn't have a view about a faith issue, which is essentially what astrology is. The presenter can have a view and I was allowed to have a view. What I did was present the scientific consensus. I think, however, that there are potential problems with broadcasters assuming a totally neutral position here in matters such as this, not particularly in trivial cases like my spat with the astrologers, where it's clear that perhaps discretion is the better part of valour, but in areas of real import. This illustrates a real point of friction between the scientific view and the imperative for the broadcaster to remain impartial, whilst allowing the presenter or programme-maker to offer a view.
Now let's look at a far more important example, the treatment of science in news and current affairs, where accuracy is arguably much more important. The example concerns childhood vaccination, specifically MMR. Now for some reason that utterly mystifies me, the practice of vaccination against disease has itself become controversial. Yet the control and eradication of certain diseases through vaccination is arguably the greatest of all human achievements. The classic example is smallpox, which was eradicated by the mid 1970s through a vaccination programme. Until that point, it had killed over 300 million people in the 20th century alone. In this next clip, which we have had to cut down for time reasons, journalist and medical doctor Ben Goldacre responded to an LBC radio phone-in, which he felt led listeners to believe that there may be a problem with the MMR vaccination, despite the fact that there isn't, and they'd been told that by every scientist they'd ever spoken to.
[Clip from 'London Tonight' (9 March 2009).]
Faye Barker: Since a possible link between autism and MMR was first reported ten years ago, immunisation rates in London have plummeted and outbreaks of measles and mumps have been on the rise.
Alastair Stewart: So, here is Dr Goldacre with his personal view of how the media could be putting our children at risk.
Ben Goldacre: Now debate's good. But this was conspiracy theory and ignorance. The pharmaceutical industry have certainly been guilty of cover-ups. But MMR just isn't one of them. And it's not as if scientists have ignored the question. Researchers in Denmark looked at half a million children. 400,000 had MMR. 100,000 didn't. And yet the rates of autism was the same in both groups. You've not heard about research like this, because the media choose not to cover the evidence that goes against their scare story. I can't blame parents for being terrified. Evidence-based medicine - the science of how we know if something's good for us, or bad for us - is fascinating. It's easy to understand. And I think the public deserve the chance to hear about these ideas.
Alastair Stewart: The personal view there, of Dr Ben Goldacre, who has some pretty strong feelings about the media's take on medical stories including some that we ourselves have reported on and it is a message for all of us in our profession to be mindful of, which we are happy so to be.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: Listen to the caveats issued by the presenters there. Here is Dr Goldacre with his personal view about how the media could be putting our children's lives at risk. The broadcaster is essentially saying that these are only the views of a medical doctor on vaccination, and you are free to ignore them if they offend you or contradict your world view. But the US news anchor Keith Olbermann recently referred to this obsessive preoccupation with perceived balance or impartiality as "worshipping before the false god of utter objectivity". His point was that by aspiring to be utterly neutral it is easy to obscure the truth. And the BBC's editorial guidelines state that impartiality is at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audience. I'm sure that very few broadcasters would disagree with that.
Now it's of course recognised that you can't give air time to every contrarian on the planet, but there are areas which for television are clearly controversial, areas in which there is a high level of public debate, for example genetically modified organisms. In such cases, presenting the opposing points of view would seem to be a overriding imperative, and here was a real clash between broadcasting and science, because controversial means different things to a scientist and to a broadcaster.
In science, we have a well-defined process for deciding what is mainstream and what is controversial, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people believe something to be true or not. It's called peer review. Peer review is a very simple and quite often brutal process, by which any claim that is submitted for publication in a scientific journal is scrutinised by independent experts whose job it is to find the flaws. Only when they are convinced that there are no errors in the experimental procedure or the theoretical reasoning can this paper be published. The paper then becomes part of what is known as the scientific literature. The job of other scientists is then to read the paper, and in general try to falsify it, or to agree with it by repeating the same experiment, or proposing new tests to challenge or verify the conclusions. This is how science proceeds, and it works.
This is the method that has delivered the modern world. It's good. It doesn't necessarily mean that the current scientific consensus is, of course, correct, but it does, in general, mean that the consensus and the scientific literature is the best that can be done, given the available data.
Therefore, I contend that "controversial" in science broadcasting, should be defined in the same way as it is in science, that is, a controversial view is not one that runs counter to public opinion, but one that runs counter to the current scientific peer-reviewed consensus.
This means that the most objective and therefore impartial presentation of a so-called contentious story, such as MMR, climate change, astrology, or even the so-called evolution debate, is to give significantly more weight to the scientifically peer-reviewed position, because this will leave the audience with a more truthful view of the current thinking.
Now it may seem there that I'm redefining what impartiality means, but the peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial. To leave the audience with this particular kind of impartial view is desperately important. We're dealing with issues of the life and death of our children and the future of our climate, and the way to deal with this is not to be fair and balanced, to borrow a phrase from a famous news outlet, but to report and explain the peer reviewed scientific consensus accurately.
So, for me, the challenge for the science reporter in television news is easily met: report the peer-reviewed consensus, and avoid the maverick eccentric at all costs.
So, the challenge for the documentary filmmaker is different and more complex, because documentaries serve a wider range of purposes. There are documentaries which deal with politically contentious issues, much like news, and there are films like my own Wonders of the Solar System that on the face of it are far less controversial because they deal with less politicised subjects. There are in other words, many kinds of documentary film, and it's of course entirely legitimate for them to be polemical. Indeed, one of the reasons that broadcasters often invite professional scientists rather than professional presenters to front documentaries, is that they have opinions and present them in a forceful way.
So how does this fit with the demands of impartiality, as I have defined, or redefined, them for news? Perhaps the most contentious issue of the moment is climate change. This is where the point of friction is made most vivid:
[Clip from 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (2007). Director: Martin Durkin. Producer: Eliya Arman.]
Scenes of extreme weather events, with dramatic music, interposed with text in block capitals:
THE ICE IS MELTING
THE SEA IS RISING
HURRICANES ARE BLOWING
AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT
SCARED?
DON'T BE
IT'S NOT TRUE
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: The beginning of Martin Durkin's highly controversial documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4. Now, what is there to say about this film (which is, in my opinion, factually total bollocks, of course)?
Ofcom had plenty to say. There was a ruling upholding a complaint about the misrepresentation of a contributor, and that the final third had broken rules of due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy.
But, I'm not entirely sure what "due impartiality" means. As I argued at the start of this lecture, "impartiality" can be misleading. If this film is a polemic, along the lines of Adam Curtis's The Power of Nightmares or the work of Michael Moore, then I would argue that this is not only fine, but valuable. In fact, in these terms, I quite enjoyed it. It raises interesting questions about institutional power and the politicisation of science. And even though I don't agree with the point of view expressed in the film, I would defend the right of the film maker absolutely to express an opinion. This is the lifeblood of democracy. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "we can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still".
But, is it clear to the audience that The Great Global Warming Swindle is polemic? The continuity announcement on Channel 4 before the film was broadcast did describe it as "a controversial and thought-provoking documentary from the film maker Martin Durkin." But nowhere in the film is it implied that it's an authored piece. Nor is there a presenter, which might go some way to flagging its polemical nature to the audience, although some presenters, be it Sir David Attenborough, or David Dimbleby, are so trusted that there may be issues there, too.
When I watched it, I immediately knew that it was making no claims to be a balanced scientific documentary. You know immediately from the off, what you're going to get. "Don't be scared" it says, "It's not true" just twenty seconds in.
But, if you know very little about climate science, how are you to make up your mind? Well, let me knowingly oversimplify a complex issue, and try to summarise the issue in a simple question: What is the difference between a polemic and a documentary?
To answer this question is to make a very significant value judgement on the content of a programme, of course. One person's balanced and impartial piece of television is another's polemical cack. This is, I would contend, the same issue that we met earlier when we were considering news reporting. My solution has to therefore be the same.
The only possible way to tell the difference between a polemic and a documentary is to appeal to scientific peer review. Now, I'm aware that this sounds far more controversial than for the case of news reporting, but to me, it is where the logic of my argument leads, so I've drawn a distinction between a scientific documentary and a polemic, based on peer review. A programme that deviates significantly from the scientific consensus should flag this somehow. Perhaps it must say: "a personal view", or "a film made by..." at the start. But this is of course what ITN did to Ben Goldacre, and I don't think that was okay then, but, only because he was reflecting the peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
Now, I confess to having reservations about this conclusion, because, although it makes sense, it does sound rather authoritarian. As George Orwell wrote in 1984, "..day by day, and almost minute by minute, the past was brought up to date. In this way, every prediction made by the party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct. Nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion which conflicted with the needs of the moment ever allowed to remain on record."
Have I been led to an Orwellian conclusion? I don't know. But what I can do is to offer an example where I think the film maker's got the balance right, by flagging the difference very clearly between the scientific consensus and the opinion of the presenter.
[Clip from 'Earth: The Climate Wars. Fight for the Future' (2008).]
Iain Stewart: It would have been lovely to have made a programme about how science had got it all wrong, that actually we've got nothing to worry about, but unfortunately it's the opposite.
Most of the climate scientists I talked to are actually genuinely scared by the future. They're worried that it's in the nature of the climate to change far faster than we once thought possible. And my feeling is, if they're scared, so should we be. Because, whatever the uncertainties surrounding climate prediction, the fundamental science is pretty clear. We may not know exactly what global warming will bring, but we sure as hell know it's happening. There's just no hiding place from that simple fact. Of course, what it means for us and our families, well, that's a different matter. But if I've learned one thing in this series, it's that the stakes are so high, doing nothing simply isn't an option.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: See, in that clip, Ian Stewart delivered a message, and I think he walked a fine line with great skill. You see in my view the so-called controversy about climate change isn't really about the scientific data, no matter what the climate sceptics think - as Ian Stewart says: the consensus is clear - the real controversy is political, and centres on the question "what is to be done?" Should we increase tax on oil? Should we not build a third runway at Heathrow? Should we build more nuclear power stations or wind turbines? Should we risk damaging our economy in the short term by reducing CO2 emissions quickly, or should we continue to pursue economic growth at all costs, and seek a more market-oriented solution to the threat of climate change?
These are complex questions, the answers to which often divide down political lines. But I think Ian Stewart navigates these treacherous waters well, because he remains true to the science and true to television, and he does this by drawing a clear distinction in the viewer's mind between the peer reviewed science and his opinion. This for me, is best practise, and is probably the best we can hope for, if we are to avoid the Orwellian nightmare of winning the victory over ourselves, and loving Big Brother.
I began this lecture by stating my view about the importance of science. And I've discussed two areas where, I think there can be tension between television and science. In this final part, I'd like to highlight the fact that, despite what I've termed "occasional difficulties", the agenda of scientists such as myself, who is interested in communicating science to a wide audience, overlaps very significantly with the agenda of the broadcaster.
See the key question for me is - and let's not be modest about this - given that I believe the future of the UK economy and indeed the future of our civilisation depends on the widespread acceptance of science and its methods, how do I attract as large an audience as possible whilst remaining absolutely true to the science? These objectives are entirely compatible. Because it's my view that the true beauty, and therefore the attractiveness of science is only available when it's presented accurately. How can it help the audience to understand and appreciate something if you skip over necessary information in the misguided cause of simplification? Science is compelling, but only if you have the facts in front of you. The trick of course is finding the most effective contemporary means to deliver this message, and this is not, as a physicist would say, time-invariant.
In other words, the techniques of television: the use of music, the speed of cuts, the use of graphics, change with the years, perhaps following audience expectations, perhaps leading them. It's always tempting to gaze backwards to an imagined golden age - probably the television you watched when you were ten or twelve years old - and bemoan the
inevitable evolution in presentation and editorial style.
Here are three different contemporary approaches that have been successful. High end graphics from Channel 4's Steven Hawking's Universe. A viscerally real demonstration of the natural world in the BAFTA-winning Inside Nature's Giants and a fact-filled and funny description of the planet Saturn in CBBC's Space Hoppers.
[Clip from 'Stephen Hawking's Universe: Time Travel' (2010). Director Nathan Williams. Producer Rory Griffin.]
Stephen Hawking: It's a universe where time runs at different rates in different places.
[End of clip.]
[Clip from 'Inside Nature's Giants: The Whale' (2009).]
Dr Joy Reidenberg: Let's see how interesting the whale eye is, because it's adapted for seeing in water, and dealing with high pressures of diving. Almost there... About to come out. Here we go. Now it's hanging on just by the nerve in the back, that transmits the image back to the brain. We're going to cut it right down the middle now, to show you the anatomy on the inside. This is very thick and therefore very hard to cut. Really solid, with connective tissue. So if I trry to really lean on it - I'm going to lean on this and push on it... I've got all my weight pushing down on it now. And all I'm doing is squeezing the blood out of that muscle, but I'm not able to deform that eye. It stays in that shape, it's a very, very sturdy construction. Now the lens is really interesting. Look at it, we're going to put it on the "I" for Irish [places lens on a fluorescent jacket with lettering: "The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group".] See how much bigger the "I" looks now, the letter "I"? Because the lens is actually magnifying.
[End of clip.]
[Clip from 'Space Hoppers: To Coldly Go' (2010).]
Space probe (female voice): What you're doing out here, Saturn?
Saturn (male voice with broad Scottish accent): Oh you know, just chilling out, being the sixth furthest planet away from the Sun and all that.
Space probe: Sixth furthest planet from the Sun? Cool!
Saturn: Cool? Cool, you say? I'm cold! Cold, dearie, I'm a cold, unwelcoming planet. I'm minus 130 degrees Centigrade, don't you know.
Space probe: Oh, I'm sure you're not all bad.
Saturn: Put it this way, my entire surface is made of gas. If any spacecraft was foolhardy enough to try to land on it, they would be doomed! Doomed, I tell you! Sinking without a trace into an awful lingering gassy death.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: These clips demonstrate that quality shines brightly through technique, whether landmark or on children's' TV. The presentation of ideas must sit at the heart of great TV. And that can work in a variety of styles. My personal view, particularly when communicating complex ideas, is that simplicity of explanation is probably best. In my programmes I feel that I can bring the audience with me on a complex scientific point, if I sit down and explain the science as best I can. I also believe that the practice of trying to say absolutely nothing that the audience may find remotely difficult is simply wrong. You see for me, it's far better to leave the audience with a few questions, rather than have them led by the hand gently through a concept and then repeat that concept again in a slow deep voice in voice over, and then repeat it again in vision just to make sure. If in doubt, my view is it's better to credit the audience with too much intelligence rather than too little. Challenge your audience a bit, and they respond. This is certainly true in teaching and lecturing so why shouldn't it be true in TV as well?
This next clip from Wonders of the Solar System is an example of how I did my best to describe a difficult concept in vision without any infographics at all. And we thought long and hard about how to explain the strange looping motion of Mars as viewed from Earth - a notorious phenomena to understand. And the graphic you see in the clip is an animation of actual photographs of Mars taken on several nights throughout the year.
[Clip from 'Wonders of the Solar System: Order out of Chaos' (2010).]
Brian Cox: Well, understanding the retrograde motion of Mars didn't come easy, that's why it took over 2000 years to work out. Now I'm going to explain it, using a stick and some rocks. The key thing is that the Earth is not at the centre of the solar system. The Sun is. And the Earth and Mars go around it, in almost circular orbits [draws circles.] So when Mars is viewed from the Earth, then it's seen on the sky, in fact on the constellations of the Zodiac. So as Mars orbits around, the Earth orbits around, then from that position Mars will look like it's there [draws cross] on the sky. Mars moves, and the Earth moves, in that position [moves rocks.] Mars moves in that direction across the sky, and again, in that position. Mars will be here - so you see it's moving in a straight line across the sky. But what happens when the Earth overtakes Mars? Then, look at the line of sight [places stick.] Mars has moved back to there [draws circle.] It's reversed it's direction. And it continues to do that until the Earth gets round to somewhere like there, and Mars is here, and then you see the line of sight means that it's started moving in that way again. So Mars has executed that strange looping motion on the sky because the Earth overtook Mars on the inside. And that's why the retrograde motion happens. Simple.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: So what are my conclusions about the challenges of presenting science on television? Well, firstly, scientific peer-review is all important. It's not possible for a broadcaster to run a parallel peer-review structure, but it is possible for the broadcaster to seek out the consensus view of the scientific community. This is the best that can be done and appropriate weight should be given to it in news reporting.
Documentary is different because polemic is a valid and necessary form of film making. But having said that, the audience needs to know whether they're watching opinion, or a presentation of the scientific consensus. And whilst I acknowledge that this is extremely difficult to achieve in practice, it is something that film makers and broadcasters must strive to do.
But ultimately, it is my view that the best way to use television to build a more scientific world is to make TV programmes that celebrate science. That present the facts accurately, to be sure, but also plays up front the beauty, emotional power, and profound implications of the scientific world view.
Because science is at its core a deeply human pursuit. It stems from that most human desire: to explore and explain the world around us. It has generated the most amazing facts and figures, along with our technological civilisation, which I see in some ways as a spin-off from the scientific project. You know, aircraft, GPS satellites, the internet, modern medicine, television. These are all applications of the knowledge we acquired accidently on our travels through an ever-expanding domain of intellectual territory.
But for me, the most visceral connection with the audience is achieved when a programme or presenter moves beyond a presentation of the facts and figures and places the scientific discoveries in their magnificent context. Nobody did this better than Carl Sagan, And so I make no apology for returning to Cosmos - the greatest television science series ever made - to end this lecture.
We're about to see the final scene from the final episode of Cosmos, in which Sagan describes what our discoveries about the universe, our place within it, and our origins out there amongst the stars actually mean for us, a young civilisation confined for now on a tiny world, a mote of dust as Sagan would say, orbiting one of hundreds of billions of stars, inside one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Now Carl Sagan has just told the story of human evolution. Not from the beginning of life on Earth, but from the first few minutes in the life of the universe, when the cosmos consisted only of hydrogen and helium, the two simplest chemical elements. Every step along the road from hydrogen to humans is fascinating in itself. But Sagan goes further by contextualising the science and crucially for me, using the story to draw profound conclusions about our responsibility to ourselves, our planet, and ultimately the cosmos itself. This is not only science television at its best, it is television at its best: relevant, educational, powerful, and profoundly moving.
[Clip from 'Cosmos: A Personal Voyage: Who Speaks for Earth?' (1981).]
Carl Sagan: These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do, given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution. That has the sound of epic myth, but it's simply a description of the evolution of the cosmos, as revealed by science in our time. And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun at last to wonder about our origins. Star-stuff contemplating the stars. Organised collections of 10 billion billion billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and, perhaps, throughout the cosmos. Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed, not just to ourselves, but also to that cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.
[End of clip.]
Brian Cox: Thank you very much.