World Conference of Science Journalists

Newspaper headlines are going to feature, I’m sure, in today’s discussion, so let me give you one of my own: “Politician praises journalist shock!”

No matter what country you come from, the relationship between the media and politicians is always a fraught one. But despite having faced some pretty hostile attention from the British media as a businessman who got interested and involved in politics, I really believe that UK science journalists do a great job. Not only do they do a great job, but it’s vital for the success and happiness of our country.

Now I’m not saying that science journalism in the UK has never been at fault. There have been some problems in the past on some important stories, but no-one operates in a vacuum, least of all science journalists.

They need access to the scientists themselves, they need access to politicians. They rely upon editors allowing them to develop their stories as science journalists.

What matters is that everyone who’s involved in the communication of science here in the UK has learnt some really important lessons, and that the damaging episodes which certainly took place in the past have created a collective understanding of how to do this better.

In the late 1990s, when I was working within the biotechnology industry, the GM debate was an example of how things can go wrong. The debate was hijacked by commercial interests. It led to a fear fest. When we look back at coverage at the height of the “Frankenstein foods” drama – and that’s a label which still remains today – not a single news article was written by a science journalist.

The result was that the serious issues which surrounded, or should have surrounded, the debate on GM foods – issues such as the environment, food security, biodiversity – just got lost.

Even worse was the farrago around the MMR vaccine, again at the end of the 1990s. It started off, I believe, with bad science. In this case, the highly respected Lancet held a press conference at which a tenuous link was made between MMR and autism.

This was then seized on by news desks and columnists. In 1998, the Daily Mail alone had 700 stories on MMR, and the shrill coverage led to a significant drop in vaccination rates and subsequent measles outbreaks in the UK.

I believe that through the inaction of politicians, science correspondents, the science and medical communities overall, we allowed this to happen, and it took way too long for the right people to examine what was dodgy research and to speak out against it.

I’m sure you have parallels in your countries.

So, having highlighted those two events, on what grounds am I arguing that British science journalism is now much stronger?

MMR and GM foods led to a period of introspection and reflection here in the United Kingdom, within politics, within the science community and among science journalists.

One of the specific outputs from that was the creation of the Science Media Centre, which has done a tremendous job in providing a resource, both for the science community and science journalists, that enables science to be effectively reported in a 24/7 news environment. I’m really pleased about the way in which the SMC model is now being taken up around the world.

Also the way in which the UK Government has responded – the practice of departments having their own Chief Scientific Advisers (and we’re now getting to the stage where almost all departments have one) shows that we take this very seriously.

I’m the first Science Minister in the Cabinet. We have the first Cabinet Committee focused entirely on science and innovation. These steps have put science right at the heart of government policy.

And the fact that we have more press offices staffed by trained scientists – people who really do understand the issues and the science behind them – means they can work proactively with the media. The result has been that the quality and positive impact of British science journalism has significantly improved.

I want to give you two examples in contrast to GM and MMR.

Animal hybrid embryo research: now there have been some really quite “out there” headlines. But the scientists, the press officers, the media advisers in this area supported science correspondents in drafting balanced stories based on good science – which explained the methodologies and the safeguards, as well as giving a sense of the potential benefits in the long term.

In the case of swine flu, I think we have learnt from experiences of the past – the way in which the Medical Research Council here in the UK had virologists lined up to talk about the swine flu outbreak right away, in their own laboratories; the way in which science correspondents, especially BBC broadcasters, took hold of the story.

The key to this is that the science journalists were in charge of the story, not generalist journalists.

In-depth, transparent coverage about science and public health aspects provided an important counterbalance to the reporting of, say, holidaymakers returning from Mexico.

If you look at coverage of the Large Hadron Collider, of Aberystwyth University robot Adam identifying a gene in yeast which humans had been unable to find, you’ll see how science journalism in this country is not just finding a way to get good science talked about, but it is finding the right way to make it interesting.

Quality science sensationally written is acceptable, if that’s what’s needed to get it out to the general public. I applaud journalists for taking a critical look at what politicians are doing – at, say, the recent comments on GM by Prince Charles.

It’s clear to me that when science correspondents are centre stage, when politicians make sure that they have access, when the scientists talk to them – that’s when it really works. And that’s what’s happening in Britain, to a high standard.

But I won’t just give you anecdotes and my personal impressions. Let me give you some actual scientific data, because Britain has historical data on public perceptions of science and of its practitioners.

In 2008, 72 per cent of the public surveyed said that they trust scientists to tell the truth, up seven percentage points on 1997.

A separate survey last year found that 82 per cent of people agreed that they were “amazed by the achievements of science”, while there was a 10 percentage point drop in those concerned or worried about science.

This, to me, suggests that science correspondents are getting things right.

And we’re also changing the way that we’re judging academic performance in government. We believe that scientists have a duty, particularly when they’re funded by taxpayers, to engage in the public arena, to communicate the challenges, the potential ethical concerns of their work – and that will be factored into the revised research assessment framework.

As Science Minister I launched, with the Prime Minister, a campaign which was unusual in that it talks about science but it isn’t aimed at scientists and the scientific elite. What we need to get over to the general public is how science is part of our everyday lives. The “Science: [So what? So everything]” campaign uses celebrities who, not necessarily scientists themselves, really understand how important science is to what they do.

I’m not unaware, though, of the challenges that science journalism faces. Perhaps not so much here in the UK, but in other countries where there have been cuts – at the Boston Globe, at Le Monde. Nature recently reported that CNN has closed its science and technology unit.

The digital revolution poses a challenge too, but it’s also an opportunity for us to use new media. The discipline of Tweeting in 140 characters has given me an insight into just how brilliant some headline writers are. I tweeted yesterday, telling people I was coming here, and asked what’s the collective noun for 900 science journalists. If you want to know what people said, you’ll have to go to my Twitter page.

Now, there’s an obvious tension between good quality, analytical scientific reporting which demands objectivity and nuance – and stories which actually make the news and raise awareness. I know that scientists are naturally suspicious of anyone expressing certainties.

I must admit, I did initially shudder when I saw this headline in the Sun: “Sex Kills”. If you change two letters, you get “Sex Sells,” which captures the Sun’s editorial policy.

But look past this headline and the the reporting of how prostaglandin, a chemical in semen, speeds the growth of both cervical and womb cancer, is good science. It does explain the medical science adequately, it does get this over very clearly to the general public. And in terms of impact it’s absolutely brilliant; you have to admire the sub-editors.

Here’s another one. The UK Government announced a couple of years ago that it was giving the go-ahead for human-animal hybrid embryos in draft legislation. The Sun’s headline: “I’m a bit of a cow.”

Again, it accurately reported the science. And – crucially for me – both stories were written by a science correspondent.

We also need good reporting which transmits the “wow factor” of science. I mean wow, I don’t mean hype. We do need to inspire the future generations of physicists, chemists and engineers. For all of the effort we’re putting in to improving careers advice, to improving the quality of education, it’s the joy of science – the joy of discovery, of asking new questions and then going out and doing your best to find the answers – which it’s very important for us to get over; and this, again, is where science journalism has a huge impact.

We want a society that’s awestruck by science, not dumbstruck by it. We want a scientifically literate society in this country. That’s why I say that sensational science reporting is fine so long as it’s accurate and it’s covering good science.

So, I think that we’re in a strong place. I think we’ve learnt a lot. I think that so long as we maintain this trend, we can have some confidence that positive science journalism will be a pillar for a successful and happy country – a country at ease with the challenges of science, a country that believes that it’s good at science, and understands how to have a debate about it.

Thank you.

• Print this page