Written evidence submitted by the Science Communication Unit, Imperial College London (COM0014)

Summary

• There is no communication fix that will resolve tensions between science and the wider society.
• The state of research culture impacts on the relationship between science and society; current drivers towards increased competitiveness within science may undermine public trust in science.  
• The quality of science journalism is determined by the wider news culture; making a special case of science reporting is unlikely to be productive in most cases.
• Science journalism is highly dependent on press releases and an embargo system that currently lacks transparency.
• Science television programming in the UK is diverse and of high quality.
• Women scientists have been underrepresented in the media; the BBC is currently attempting to address this in its programming.
• Online media are unlikely to reach a mass audience for science without replicating many of the features of traditional media.

About the Science Communication Unit

1.              The Science Communication Unit at Imperial College is an academic unit that runs an internationally-renowned masters programme in science communication. We train science graduates who wish to supplement their scientific knowledge with an in-depth grounding in communication. Our alumni go on to occupy senior roles in a range of organisations, from science journalism and television production through to museums, outreach, public engagement and science policy.

2.              This submission was prepared by Dr Felicity Mellor and Dr Stephen Webster. Felicity Mellor’s research focuses on the media representation of science; she led the content analysis that supported the BBC Trust’s 2011 review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s science coverage. Stephen Webster is the Director of the Science Communication Unit and has interests in the culture and ethics of science.

Scope of the Submission

3.              Science communication is an umbrella term covering a wide variety of activities including: professional communication by scientists; interactions between scientists and members of the public; the media representation of science; and the ways people use scientific knowledge in their own lives. This submission focuses on the first three of these.

4.              Several academic analyses have highlighted the limitations of many activities that go under the banner of ‘public engagement with science’, arguing that the dialogue called for in 2000 in the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee report on Science and Society has not fully been achieved.[1] We agree with such critiques, but we do not discuss the nature of dialogue further here. Rather, the overarching point we would like to stress is that there is no ‘communication fix’ that will remove all tensions between science and the wider society. Struggles over which knowledge is pertinent to a particular issue – and how that knowledge should be interpreted and applied – are a necessary feature of a democratic society. In particular, where scientific knowledge is embroiled in political disagreements or where it impacts on parties with conflicting interests, clearer communication of the science will not in itself lead to a policy consensus or behaviour change. Matters of judgement cannot be reduced to questions of science.

The Role of Universities in Science Communication

5.              As the main recipient of state-organised research funding, UK universities are important partners in science communication. University communications offices and science departments are proactive in disseminating research news through their own media streams. Universities are also active in organising science outreach activities; for example, by setting up relations with schools or by organising festivals. Part of the motive of such outreach work is in attracting students and in broadening the demographic reach of the student admission process.

6.              Universities also influence science communication in ways that extend beyond their own immediate interests. This takes three main forms: universities function as a source of scientific expertise and innovation; they carry out academic research into science communication and train practitioners; and they play a vital role in maintaining the ethical grounding of scientific research, and therefore the trust in which science is held.

7.              Technological innovation depends on the consent of society; issues of policy and communication are therefore of growing concern to university planners. It is now commonplace to argue that as a new technology develops, its implications should be debated publicly from the beginning. We can see this process happening now with the gene editing techniques known as CRISPR. Another recent example is that of mitochondrial transfer technology, which achieved parliamentary consent in February 2015 following a period of consultation organised by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

8.              The recognition that ‘upstream’ engagement of this type is essential demonstrates the role that the academic study of science communication has had on science communication practice. Such research helps us understand societal processes in relation to science and has been a strong influence in the move towards upstream engagement. We therefore very much welcome the Chief Scientific Adviser’s acknowledgement of the value of the social sciences and humanities in planning and taking forward innovation.[2]

Research Culture

9.               Scientists increasingly put aside time for science communication. They do so for many different reasons, but we are perhaps also witnessing a generational shift that sees the professional identity of scientists expanding to include public communication. However, the quality of the communication that ensues is also influenced by the research culture in which scientists work.

10.              The House of Lords 2000 report on Science and Society emphasised the importance of trust.[3] Sixteen years later the issue of trust in institutions – and how it can be earned – is only growing in importance. Many groups, including bankers, journalists, sportspeople, accountants and politicians are used to intense and increasing scrutiny of their integrity. We can expect that scientists, and the science they produce, will also be subject to this increasing scrutiny. A convincing record of professional integrity is likely to be a strong determinant of trust and so it is vital that universities rank issues of justice and honesty in their science communities as a matter of the highest importance.

11.              The media have already drawn attention to some high-profile cases of misconduct. However, we believe the protection of ordinary communicative processes between scientists – so vital a part of the culture of science – is of greater significance here. The increasingly competitive culture that surrounds innovation could have unanticipated consequences on the quality of scientific production and on the ethics of laboratory life. For instance, a 2014 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted that hyper-competitiveness can lead to short-termism and a narrowing of the scientific vision.[4] The authors noted that early career scientists feel they have little control over their surrounding research culture. Similar arguments about the current shape of publication norms and research culture were made in the 2015 Royal Society report on the future of scholarly scientific communication.[5]

12.              Universities are beginning to examine these issues for their impact on academic promotion and on scientists’ well-being. The 2012 RCUK concordat on scientific integrity marks a step forward.[6] Also significant is the HEFCE report, ‘The Metric Tide’, which examines the use of research metrics in academic life.[7] This re-appraisal of research culture needs to be carried forward with diligence. The experience of other professions suggests that perceptions of sharp practice can quickly enter public debate. Polls show that scientists rank as one of the most trusted professions, but this could easily be undermined if a popular discourse were to emerge that characterised scientists as rushing their work and surviving by self-promotion.[8] One essential task for both universities and government, therefore, is to ensure that science can be done in the right spirit and at the right pace.

Science News Journalism

13.              Notwithstanding universities’ active involvement in science communication, polls show that most people get their information about science from the mass media, especially television.[9] Coupled with the current high levels of trust in scientists, this suggests that, at the very least, the way the UK media cover science is not undermining public trust in science in general.

14.              Much commentary about the news reporting of science has focussed on the journalistic practice of balancing stories by including comment from those with opposing views. The content analysis for the BBC’s impartiality review found that when the BBC used balance it typically did so in a polarising way, sourcing balancing comments from those known for campaigning on an oppositional platform.[10] Importantly, however, the content analysis also found that in its overall news coverage of science, balance was rarely used – only a third of broadcast news items about science included comment from more than one contributor, only a fifth of contributors made cautionary comments about the science being reported, and only 7% of contributors made more far-reaching criticisms. There is no reason to think that the BBC is any different in this respect than other outlets. In our view, this under-use of balance in science journalism is as much a concern as the reliance on a polarising approach when balance is used.

15.              Both the under-use of balance and a polarising use of balance are symptoms of a failure of news reports to interrogate claims about scientific issues, which is also manifest in the relative absence of expressions of uncertainty from news reports about science. The disciplined scepticism that is inherent to science is not apparent from such reporting. Rather, news coverage builds an image of science as either an unassailable truth or a matter of opinion. In the former case, by routinely portraying science as a source of certainty, the news media contribute to public expectations that science can provide definitive answers to complex issues – expectations that are likely to be disappointed whenever scientists are called on to help resolve policy disputes. At the other extreme, where science is presented as a matter of opinion, science is denied its ability to provide a baseline of uncontested knowledge supported by reliable data.

16.              Several factors may explain why much science journalism presents science in this manner: audiences are attracted to dramatic and unambiguous stories (so polarised controversy is easy to report and uncertainty is difficult to report); nuanced reporting requires more space than the typical news report allows; journalists are time-starved and lack the resources to investigate stories fully; and scientists are under pressure to talk up the value of their research to society. With the audience, the producers of news and the sources of news all implicated, it is insufficient to blame journalists alone for the shortcomings of news coverage.

17.              The news culture that encourages the unprobing nature of science journalism is shared with other beats. However, one respect in which science journalism differs from other types of journalism is the extent to which it relies on material derived from press releases. The majority of news stories about research findings are based on press releases (in the BBC analysis we found it was 73%; it is likely to be a similar proportion for most newspapers). Most of these press releases are issued by universities and a small number of scientific journals. Science journalists work within an embargo system operated by the large journals; breaking the embargo forfeits a news outlet future access to press releases from that journal.

18.              The embargo system has benefits for both journalists and scientific organisations. However, the system also encourages a pack mentality among journalists; leads to many news outlets doing little more than reproducing press releases; contributes to flip-flop reporting focussed on discrete (and sometimes contradictory) findings rather than the cumulative state of knowledge; and replaces external journalistic scrutiny with the, sometimes flawed, internal process of journal-based peer review. Some of the drawbacks of the embargo system could be addressed if press releases and the journal papers on which they are based were required to be publicly available and linked from online news reports as part of the embargo contract, and if peer review reports were included in the pack of materials sent to journalists. 

Non-News Science Programming

19.              The content analysis for the BBC impartiality review found a great diversity of science programming, with science featuring within non-science programmes as well as on specialist programmes. Coverage on Radio 4 was particularly wide-ranging, but BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4 all also included science content in a variety of programme types. A study of science programming across Europe found that Channel 4 and Channel 5 also commissioned a significant amount of science content but ITV had very little.[11] This study concluded that in Europe as a whole commercial channels make little contribution to science broadcasting, with only 14% of television science and 7% of radio science being provided by commercial broadcasters. Channels with a smaller market reach are more likely to broadcast science programmes than those with the largest market reach. This same study also found that the UK was unusual in having a high proportion of science programmes in the form of high-quality documentaries. These documentaries are sold internationally.

20.              Academic studies have identified the media portrayal of female scientists as one area of particular concern. In our analysis of BBC science programming, 80% of contributors who were presented as having scientific expertise were men. A similar pattern is found in television news items about science and in newspaper coverage.[12] In its response to the impartiality review, the BBC Executive reports taking a number of steps to increase the number of women scientists appearing in its programmes.[13] However, as with news reporting, addressing this issue is not entirely within the power of the broadcasters. It also requires wider cultural conditions in which appearing on television does not pose excessive risks for women in terms of career progression or in terms of exposure to personal abuse.

21.              Television has the potential to create, or at least reinforce, role models which can influence whether young people aspire to a particular career. For science, where women are still under-represented in some disciplines and at senior levels in all disciplines, this makes the inclusion of female scientists in science programming particularly sensitive. How women scientists are presented is as important as the number of women scientists presented. It is worth noting that the depiction of scientists in drama is also significant in this regard. A series such as The Big Bang Theory – which has also had to address concerns about its gendered portrayal of science – is arguably more influential in building an impression of what it is like to be a scientist than is a Brian Cox documentary.

Online Media

22.              Polls indicate that although most people still get information about science from traditional media, the use of online media for this purpose is increasing, especially among young people.[14] The internet has increased the diversity of media science and has provided scientists and scientific organisations with a platform to present content directly to the public. However, much of this content is only likely to be sought out by those already interested in science. The most-used online sources for science information are not specialist sites but the websites of traditional news organisations such as the BBC and the Daily Mail. Conversely, studies of specialist science blogs suggest that their typical readers are either science enthusiasts or people committed to a cause in which science is implicated.[15] In other words, where traditional media are able to bring science to a passive mass audience, online-only media are more likely to reach a narrower active audience.

23.              Online media also present the opportunity for members of the public to comment on science. However, the potential for social media to engage the public in conversations with scientists may be limited. The polarisation found in traditional news reporting of controversial issues is, if anything, exacerbated in online discussions. The challenge this poses for science reporting was highlighted in 2013 when the US magazine Popular Science decided to close down the commenting facility on all stories on its news website as a result of the number of fractious comments being posted.[16] The magazine justified its decision with reference to a study that had found that uncivil comments were more likely than civil comments to polarise readers and to alter their interpretation of a science news story.[17] The research implied that even a small number of aggressive comments can affect the way the audience weighs up scientific claims.

24.              Digital media have great potential for engaging specific publics with science in new and refreshing ways. But with science and innovation deeply implicated in our social relations, no communication medium is able to serve as a panacea for corralling support for science.

April 2016