Over the past 15 years there have been significant increases in the coverage of science in the mass media and the number of hands-on science centres in the UK, two developments that would be expected to foster better “public understanding of science”. But as noted in Who’s Misunderstanding Whom? (see links), a new report on the relationship between science and the media, recent attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) crops and foods in the UK have “re-ignited a sense of frustration about the difficulties of conducting science in a society where public knowledge about science relies upon increasingly unreliable mass media”.
Commissioned by the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) and written by Ian Hargreaves, professor of journalism at Cardiff University, Who’s Misunderstanding Whom? is a commentary on the existing literature about science and the media, including a recent report by a House of Lords select committee that reached many similar conclusions (Physics World April p15). One surprising fact to emerge is that there has been very little quantitative research into the interaction between scientists and the media, and almost none into science on television.
Indeed, as part of the report, Hargreaves asked a group of journalists how accurately and fairly the mainstream media represents science and scientists: a large majority replied either “satisfactorily” or “inadequately”, with none replying “very well”. However, they were just as adamant that scientists did not understand the workings of the media. A recent article by Roger Highfield of the Daily Telegraph – voted the best paper for science in the new report – gives some idea of the environment in which the science writers on national newspapers work: “[The public] distrust hacks as much as boffins. But scientists could still learn from journalists. Journalists think carefully about their audience and communicate accordingly. Each day I search […] to find news of interest to my readers (not to educate them with what scientists think they ought to know). I face stiff competition within the paper. To carve out a slot among column inches of murder, politics and mayhem, I file three or more stories daily. Most never make it into print.” (Science 2000 289 59).
Stressing that the media is not a single entity, Hargreaves focuses on “mediation” as a two-way process that involves the traditional mass media (which is pretty diverse), the new media of the Internet, specialized media (such as scientific journals) and hidden media (e.g. the customer information gathered by supermarkets).
The report is essentially a call for social scientists to become involved in the public dimension of science. While natural scientists might be wary of such a manifesto – fearing a repeat of the recent “science wars” between physicists and sociologists – they must accept that this is part and parcel of living in a world that increasingly relies on science. Particular recommendations in the report include: the establishment of major datasets to track public understanding of and opinion about science; research into “risk communication” to reflect the fact that science does not always give black and white answers; and the replacement of the label “public understanding of science” with something more neutral, such as science and society (as suggested by the Lords). Hargreaves acknowledges that his recommendations will “require serious commitment of funds and talent, comparable in scale to the building of social science databases in now traditional areas of interest such as class, poverty and social attitudes. It is a task not yet seriously attempted”.
With individual scientists doing more than ever to contribute to the overall activity of science and society, the issues raised by Hargreaves call, first and foremost, for actions by the government, the research councils and big business. Such action is needed to ensure that their investments in science – investments that history has shown are good for society – are not jeopardized in the future.
