Once more unto the breach, dear friends

How do we as scientists deal with a media that reports science in shock headlines – and do we need to police ourselves when some in our profession find it expedient to publish in the tabloids rather than journals such as Nature, for example?

Those were some of the questions being asked in the Agency yesterday evening when scientists and fellow travellers gathered to hear Professor Colin Blakemore present the inaugural Chief Scientist’s Lecture.  Colin is chair of the Agency’s General Advisory Committee on Science and I was pleased to welcome him to speak to a packed room on communication of science over the past 15 years – and who the public trust to do that communication.

BSE, mobile phones, genetic modification, the stem cell debate and research on animals were all examined and interesting differences highlighted on the way these debates have played out and continue to play out in the media. Much has been said about how the public are risk averse, especially when it’s something they feel they have no control over. But Colin pointed out that this was often related to perceived benefit: the public perceived rightly or wrongly that there is a risk associated with mobile phones, but they are prepared to accept it because of the benefit they enjoy.

They also perceive a risk with genetic modification but are less willing to accept it as they have not, so far seen a benefit, at least in the UK.  Given the questions being raised at the moment about whether GM and other technologies could help alleviate rising food prices, it will be interesting to monitor how the public views the balance of risks and benefits.

Some Mori data that Colin presented showed that trust in scientists is at its highest for 15 years, but journalists, the main communicators of science in our media-obsessed age, feature in their traditional lowly position, along with politicians. However, the pressure on scientists to publish, publish, publish, and raise their institution’s profile has led to several abandoning the considered route of peer review and talking to the media rather sooner than many their colleagues find helpful. At least in science we are trying to deal with this issue through codes of practice, such as the Universal Code for Scientists, which I’ve blogged on previously and the quality assurance Code of Practice.

 A further point was that science is more effectively communicated if there is a two-way flow of information.  Of course, this blog is one way that I try to achieve this engagement and regular bloggers will know that not only can you post a response or view, but also, from time to time, get a further comment. Indeed, the overwhelming message was that continuing to engage with both the public and the media, however rough individual bouts are, is worth it in the long run. It’s a tough life being a scientist, but someone’s got to do it.

I've initiated this lecture series mainly for the FSA team.  Should there be sufficient interest from others, then I may be able to make the lectures more accessible through podcasts.  Building on the success of the inaugural lecture, a second Chief Scientist’s Lecture is planned for the autumn.