NEWS: Science journalism in crisis?

There was much discussion of the state of science journalism at this year's AAAS meeting.

At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in February this year, journalists gathered at an informal session to discuss the current and upcoming challenges for specialist science reporters, particularly in light of CNN's decision to axe their entire science, technology and environment news staff.

Organized by the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) and the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), the view of the panel was that some of the bad news in developed world journalism was being offset by good news elsewhere.

WFSJ Board Member Nadia El-Awady spoke of the healthy state of journalism in Africa and the Arab countries, contrasting bad news in the US reported by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review, and the state of play elsewhere.

But as Pallab Ghosh, Science Correspondent for BBC News and the current President of the WFSJ, pointed out, science journalists are needed now more than ever. Ghosh gave a presentation on how the media's representations of climate change and the associated politics are affecting debate in this area, highlighting the important role real science journalists have to play.

A full report on the event is available at The Columbia Journalism Review.

Sunny Bains

Is this the real climate swindle?

A chilly response to a programme on global warming prompts Bob Ward to throw his remote control at the TV

Is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" an outstanding example of investigative journalism that uncovered the truth about climate change science, or a pernicious piece of propaganda that systematically misrepresents the evidence about global warming?

Let me declare my hand at the outset: I believe that the latter is true. But while no doubt some ABSW members might think that “you would say that, wouldn’t you,” I have to admit some surprise at the way in which the programme has been promoted, or excused, by some journalists in the past couple of months as if it they believed the former.

Lying at the heart of some of the support for the programme (and the ABSW’s chair even called for the programme to be nominated for an award), I suggest, are misguided concerns about the freedom of speech and the right to report, which actually trivialise an important principle.

The first thing to note of course is that the programme was broadcast on Channel Four on 8 March (and later repeated on More 4) and as such is subject to Ofcom’s ‘Broadcasting Code’, the production of which was required by the Communications Act 2003.

Ofcom has received more than 200 complaints about the programme, alleging breaches of many parts of the Code. Some of these complaints are, I believe, unjustified. Certainly the programme gave great prominence to the views held by a minority of researchers, but it would be unhealthy to insist that the media only cover mainstream views. However, the programme also included demonstrable misrepresentations of the scientific evidence (such as false statements and obsolete observations) about climate change and the interpretations made of it by some researchers. Should such misrepresentations be allowed to preserve the freedom of the media?

The Broadcasting Code says not. The Code has 10 sections, and Section 5 deals with ‘Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions’. Rule 5.7, under the sub-heading of ‘The preservation of due impartiality’ applies to television programme services, teletext services, national radio and national digital sound programme services, and states: “Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.”

Does this provision within the Code place an undue restriction on journalists’ freedom to report? I think not. ‘The Legislative Background to the Code’ explains that it has been “drafted in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights”. In particular, the Code “encompasses the audience’s right to receive creative material, information and ideas without interference but subject to restrictions proscribed by law and necessary in a democratic society”.

The importance of the media accurately representing the facts was emphasised by the philosopher Onora O’Neill in her lecture on ‘Rethinking freedom of the press’ to the Royal Irish Academy in 2003. She pointed out that “Democracy requires not merely that the media be free to express views, but that they actually and accurately inform citizens”. Baroness O’Neill went on to conclude: “Inadequate reporting, commentary and programming may marginalize important issues or voices, may circulate inaccurate or manipulated ‘information’, and may suppress or distort material that is relevant to its own assessment. It damages democracy by making it hard, even impossible, for citizens to judge for themselves.”

It seems clear to me that the ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ systematically breaches the Broadcasting Code in order to promote its central premise that solar activity, rather than greenhouse gas emissions, has been driving the recent rise global average temperature. In doing so, it damages rather than enhances democratic debate about climate change.

The distribution of the DVD of the programme, while not subject to the terms of the Broadcasting Code, would similarly be bad news for public debate about this issue. For this reason, I and 36 scientists wrote to Martin Durkin, the producer of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, to ask him to remove the many major misrepresentations in his programme before distributing it on DVD. Our request appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Mr Durkin has recently taken to describing himself as a science journalist. I believe this brings the profession of science journalism into disrepute, as does the support that some ABSW members have given to his programme. In particular, claiming that Durkin has an absolute right to mislead the public with his programme, under the freedom of speech, trivializes and diminishes an important principle that should be properly used to protect courageous (and accurate) investigative science journalism that is truly worthy of recognition through the ABSW awards.

Bob Ward is Director of Global Science Networks at Risk Management Solutions and formerly Senior Manager for Policy Communication at the Royal Society. The views expressed here are his own.

Fabian's world

Daylight saving exacerbates global warming

Don’t you wish you were the editor of the Arkansas and Democrat Gazette You could really make your mark in that paper. Consider the editorial it ran at the end of March.

“You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. In fact I understand it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person because as you know, daylight saving times started a month early this year. You’d think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have had on our climate. Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat.”

Man beats dinosaurs in race for vegeburger

The reason why dinosaurs died out is becoming clear now, following the implications offered by the new Creation Museum in Kentucky. It appears that both they and Man and Woman were created on the same day (Saturday), and the dinosaurs were vegetarian, otherwise they would have eaten Adam and Eve. So the race was on for the flora.

These animals weighed hundreds of tons or tonnes, whichever is the larger, and there was fierce competition for fruit and vegetables especially after Eve had eaten all the apples, and flora had only started growing five days previously. This was no problem for Man who could eat hamburgers. McDonald's was created on the eighth day, so Man and Woman had to make do with doughnuts for just one day. But McDonald's didn’t come up with vegeburgers until about 2002, by which time it was too late for the dinosaurs; despite a copious intake of chips and salad, there just wasn’t enough bulk to keep the poor creatures going.

That is the lesson of creationism; vegetarianism leads to extinction. Eat five portions of meat a day.

How do they know that?

Many years ago I was at a press conference held by Mrs Thatcher when she was Minister of Education and one brave journo (not me) said to her: “Some people would call you stubborn, Mrs Thatcher.”

She replied; “Name one.”

I covered my head in my briefcase with embarrassment for nearly two years afterwards, but it taught me that fatuous observations have their limits. So what about this headline from the BBC website “Camels' milk could hit UK shelves”? Not particularly fatuous although it conjures up some bizarre images, particularly if it were frozen. No, the real fatuity is in the caption to a camel’s mugshot. It says; “Camel’s milk is thought of as nectar in many Arab countries.”

How do they know that?

Can you imagine a reporter (maybe the same one who spoke to Mrs T if he’s not dead by now) trotting round Saudi Arabia or Egypt asking camel herders what they thought of camels' milk. Suppose one of them were patient enough to reply to this daft question. Can you imagine him smacking his lips and saying “It’s just as good as nectar”? Coca Cola more like.

Bring on the horses

I’ve always been a man for the unit of horsepower; it’s so much more evocative than the metric equivalent. No disrespect to Mr Watt, but I don’t even know what he looks like, so I can’t form any image of him pulling a cart or pushing a train. But everyone knows what a horse looks like. Even the French, with their icy cold logic towards metric units have (or had) a cheval vapeur, and what could be more evocative than that?

These thoughts were prompted when I went to a recital recently at the Royal Albert Hall where the recently refurbished organ was the main instrument. I wondered about the volume of air that must be forced through those large pipes at high velocity and how quickly the air valves would need to be operated. Open a valve too quickly when it’s under pressure it and it starts a minor earth tremor. But slow isn’t an option for an organ. And even if you do open it quickly you still might have wait five or six seconds for the final chord while compressors labour away trying to get up enough vapeur to excite the pipes. The conductor meanwhile standing frozen with his baton raised waiting for a signal from the organist. So somehow they’ve solved this problem at the Albert Hall.

One usually unreliable source told me that the compressors were driven by a 500 hp motor. Being the gullible chap that I am, I believed him. It seemed quite plausible, and I spent a bit of the time during the concert working out how, in the event of an extended power cut, one could organize five hundred horses to work the bellows.

Trying hard to look as if I were absorbed by the music, I was imagining how all the listeners in the stalls would have to be replaced by horses and their drivers, and how much hay they would have to consume before a concert. We could accommodate the hay and water and perhaps and on-duty farrier in the physics department of Imperial College, which is conveniently close, and stable the horses in the college car park.

Or maybe we could draft in people serving community orders to man or women the bellows. How about Paris Hilton? She’s in a pious mood at the moment.

The bogeyman of science, nuclear power

As the fourteenth (or is it twentieth?) declaration of a comeback for nuclear power hits the newspapers once again, Paul Guinnessy asks what stories should science journalists consider covering on the industry?

On a recent visit to the UK, I had lunch with some friends who work in the arms control community and who had a unique problem. One of their oldest members, a physics professor who had recently died had left a suitcase in their northern office, which they believed contained radioactive material. It had been in the basement for about 30 to 40 years. One brave soul put on a protection suit and opened the case while waving a Geiger counter around. Inside was a small piece of folded aluminium foil, which, when opened, contained a small piece of metal that caused the readings on the Geiger counter to go off the scale. A hasty conference shouted through the door led to the decision to reseal the foil, and the suitcase. Only paperwork that was deemed too sensitive to be read, was to be put next to the case while they figured out what to do, and whether the building needed to be evacuated during the suitcase’s removal.

Their response is a classic example of why science journalists are needed to help the public not to be scared to death about radioactivity. Radioactive materials usually consist of alpha, beta, and gamma ray emitters. Alpha emitters are very intense, extremely dangerous if ingested, but have a very short range. A sheet of paper can block an alpha emitter. Beta radiation has a longer range, but can be stopped by aluminium foil, while gamma radiation is more penetrating.

The fact that the radiation emitter in the suitcase was wrapped in aluminium foil suggests that it would be safe to pick up, as it was probably a beta/alpha emitter. Handheld Geiger counters are notoriously useless in telling you what radiation you are being whacked with, so seeing one go off the charts can sometimes cause unnecessary panic. In this case, the most important point that they forgot is that physics professors aren’t crazy enough to leave radioactive materials in the basement, unless they believe the materials are adequately shielded.

This then leads to the issue of the new interest in nuclear power. The planned resurgence of the nuclear industry in the UK is an interesting case where environmental, science, business, and political journalists will all be writing on various aspects of the unfolding story. Although the UK government appears committed to nuclear power, and the commercial sector claims to be willing to invest in it, unless the public is convinced that new power plants will be safer, cheaper and more efficient than their predecessors, it is unlikely that someone is going to build them. Over the next few months there will be a campaign to influence journalistic opinion one way or another. Both sides of the issue, the anti-nuke brigade and the pro-nuclear lobby, are going to be throwing statistics at journalists left right and centre.

How should science journalists approach this issue? What type of stories could they write about the industry?

Both sides of the nuclear debate have valid points (as The Guardian helpfully pointed out a few weeks ago), and there will be the temptation to just write a 'he says, she says' sort of article. But there is also an opportunity to do some interesting digging beneath the surface.

As many of you know, the domestic nuclear industry no longer exists, having dwindled as few or no reactors were ordered. Instead, the European company Areva, and three Japanese companies, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi, are the leading reactor builders. What expertise the UK has is is similar to its US counterparts, squeezing the maximum performance out of old reactors, by running them at higher temperatures and upgrading parts of the system to limit refuelling and reactor downtime. A look at this process, what did they do to improver reliability, is running an old reactor safer than building a new plant, might make a nice piece.

There is also the concern about whether nuclear plants will release radioactive plumes into the atmosphere, so a comparison with coal-fired power plants, which release radioactive plumes all the time, might lead to some surprising conclusions.

Other questions to ask are: Where will the UK buy its uranium fuel and uranium ore from? How do you create uranium fuel and what procedures are in place to minimize waste, both at the point of creation for the fuel, and after its been used. How long will a nuclear power plant have to be off-limits before you would walk safely inside a reactor? Are the standards for nuclear waste storage, particularly on the length of time the waste has to be contained, based on science? Or on an arbitrary number pulled out of a civil servant's hat? What are the scientific implications for the UK if Europe pulls ahead in nuclear power, and leaves the UK behind? Is there enough scientific and technical staff in the UK to build, service, or run new nuclear power plants? As the US no longer has the expertise to repair its own reactors and subcontracts the work to the Franco-German company Areva.

And for your business colleagues, who is paying the bills, investors, utilities, or the government? Who is buying up all the potential sites for the reactors, and was there heavy trading in the shares of those companies just before the government announced the new reactor building consultation process? There are lots of potentially useful stories waiting to be written about the nuclear industry. I hope this gives you some ideas towards writing some of them.