Do scientists and the media make good bedfellows? <em>- News</em>
By Colin Smith
Monday 5 November 2007
Some of the country’s leading science writers and scientists came together at Imperial College London last week to debate whether their relationship was a marriage made in heaven or hell.
Chaired by BBC Science correspondent, Palllab Ghosh, 150 guests converged on the Sir Alexander Fleming Building to hear whether scientists and the media make good bedfellows.
David Cohen from New Scientist, Alok Jha from The Guardian, and Michelle Martin from BBC Science Radio, duelled with Professor Steve Bloom from Imperial’s Division of Investigative Science and Professor Richard Templer , Director of the Colleges Porter Institute, which is researching biofuels.
Professor Steve Bloom, who is one of the world’s leading obesity experts, kicked-off with a light hearted anecdote about sensationalism in journalism.
“I remember an instance where I was talking about a new breakthrough in obesity. It was an appetite suppressor that required daily injections and a journalist asked whether there was another way to administer the dosage. I joked that we could put it in chewing gum. The next day the headline read, ‘gum to shrink your bum’.”
“Well I guess that is what I said,” he joked.
Professor Bloom said it is the duty of scientists to put out information about what they were doing because the public pays them to make discoveries. He said most scientists and journalists were moral and trying to do the right thing.
Professor Richard Templer admonished Professor Bloom for being too mild with his arguments and stated his intent to be controversial, but not as controversial as Heather Mills-McCartney.
He cited a recent 2006 Harris Poll commissioned by Forbes Magazine which ranked UK scientists as being the 7th most respected profession.
“Funnily enough, journalists didn’t appear at the top of any of these tables, in fact, they appeared as the 4th worst profession. Interestingly they were above politicians and, thank God for them, estate agents.”
Alok Jha said he made no excuses for the popularisation of science and highlighted a Mori Poll which stated that 90 per cent of people got their science information from the media as his justification.
“When we find something interesting we will try our best to make it interesting. As much as you try you are not going to get someone to read 2000 words on quantum mechanics unless you make it entertaining.”
The BBC’s Michelle Martin brought history into the argument and rebutted a point made by Professor Templer:
“Who do you think was responsible for making scientists one of the most respected professions? That’s right, the media! If you look back in history scientists were perceived as being grubby workmen. They certainly weren’t seen as intellectuals. That was the domain of artists and writers.”
Michelle said that people could argue that the ‘hard working’ science journalist helped to change the public’s perception of science.
New Scientist’s David Cohen blamed scientists for being obstructive and not “very helpful”. He said a lot of science was not done in academia anymore and there is a profit motive behind some research.
Pallab then threw the debate open to the floor. PR professionals, philosophers, scientists and journalists joined the discussion.
The evening concluded with a drinks reception.
The debate was organised by Imperial College London’s Press Office as part of the College’s Centenary celebrations.
Watch the Debate via Imperial's video stream (RealPlayer)
Article text (excluding photos or graphics) available under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license.
Photos and graphics subject to third party copyright used with permission or © Imperial College London.
