Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: N/A
Date: 21/07/2011
Event: Lord May and Connie St Louis discuss the BBC's reporting of science
People:
Sarah Montague: We usually try to be balanced, on this programme, by giving both sides of an argument. That's often a good way of testing an idea, as well. Not that it always works. But it's an approach that has been criticised by the genetics professor Steve Jones. He was asked by the BBC to look at its coverage of science. And whilst he said there was much to praise, he did suggest that attempts at balance, in science, often gave undue weight and prominence to marginal opinions. Which meant that viewers and listeners might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. And one of the examples, among others, was that of global warming. Well, Lord May is the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government. He's also President of the Royal Society, and he joins us on the line from Oxford. Here in the studio, we're joined by Connie St Louis, who's a science journalist and Director of City University's MA course in Science Journalism. Good morning to you both.
Connie St Louis: Good morning.
Robert May: Morning.
Sarah Montague: Lord May, just on this question, first of all, of the way - the BBC's approach. Is this something, when you listen or watch BBC programmes, that you do get frustrated about, that we can't adequately give a sense of proportion?
Robert May: Well let me say, right at the start, I thought Steve Jones's report was absolutely superb, and I completely agree with him, that the BBC is high-quality, clear, accurate, impartial, and basically the best in the world. While at the same time, I very much share some of the constructive criticisms that Steve gave, and as you just said, it's a well-intended but over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality, which too often lead to giving equal weight to evidence-based scientific facts over opinion, creating a false balance between facts and opinions.
Sarah Montague: Well, this - this idea of a false balance, or perhaps even creating a row when there isn't one, is something we're accused of in other disciplines. But do you think, Connie St Louis, that science is different from other disciplines? And therefore, in terms of the way that you test an argument, or the way that you try to tell a story, we should be treating it differently?
Connie St Louis: I think that the, sort of, straightforward - one person says this and another person says that - is not quite the way to go, for science. But I think one of the problems with the reporting of science is that we give too much prominence to just the word of the scientist. So the science, I feel, has become some sort of priesthood, and science journalists have, sort of, jumped on this bandwagon of just communicating what they say, and there's not enough scrutiny going on, there's not enough journalism going on.
Sarah Montague: Do you agree with Professor Jones that there is a sort of false balance - [Lord May is starting to say something.] Before I come back to you, Lord May, I'd just want to ask Connie St Louis whether she also agrees with Professor Jones, with - I mean, do you listen to the stuff that the BBC does, and think we've created a false balance?
Connie St Louis: I think sometimes, people like - for example, having Lord Lawson up to talk about climate change, when it is a scientific fact, is spurious. If you look at the amount of time he appears, the amount of time he's given a platform, to something that is actually considered to be science fact now, and has been rigorously debated and scrutinised - yes, I do agree with that.
Sarah Montague: Although, Lord May, science doesn't exist on its own, it sits within the political realm as well.
Robert May: Yes, I think part of the problem - and I share much of the opinion just expressed - part of the problem is that in school, in university and especially on quiz shows, we tend to see science as certainty - I mean, there's got to be a right answer and a wrong answer on "Do you want to be a millionaire?" [sic]. But in fact, science is best seen as organised scepticism. And we use methods that are relatively recent, it's only been about three hundred and fifty years ago that the Royal Society created the notion of - formalised the notion of - you don't just appeal to authorities, you go out and design tests to experiment and... The journey on any particular topic, whether it's genetically modified food, or climate change begins with uncertainties, designs - has a sort of landscape of opinions, different ideas contending, and then you try and resolve it by tests. And over time, you tend to converge on really much a deeper understanding - always tentatively held, even Newton can be subject, in certain special circumstances, modifications of a relativistic kind. And it's hard to convey that sense, and it's particularly exasperating, when what is organised scepticism has the word "scepticism" taken over by people who are offering you simply beliefs.
Connie St Louie: But I think that's part of the problem with the way that science presents itself, and the way science is interrogated by journalism as well. So on no other subject would we have scientists getting away with making the statements that they make, without - you know, you don't hear politicians making stuff - statements, without being scrutinised and -
Sarah Montague: Challenged -
Connie St Louis: - investigated and challenged. But actually in science, whilst there is dissent, very little of that is seen. While papers are published, people think this is "the word", they don't understand that lots of papers don't get published, they don't understand that there's lots of no results, you know, there's lots of papers that find nothing. And so I think this is something to do with the way we as a society think about science and we as journalists interrogate it.
Sarah Montague: Well, it's a discussion that will continue, but not for the moment - Connie St Louis, Lord May, thank you.