Association of British Science Writers
Wellcome Wolfson Building
165 Queen's Gate
London
SW7 5HD
Tel: 0870 770 3361
absw"at"absw.org.uk
These pages were designed, well, cobbled
together, by Michael Kenward on behalf of the ABSW.
| |
|
Guidance for editors
The Royal Society's recommendations
|
|
You can download a complete formatted (pdf) version of the document "Scientists and the media"
from the Royal Society....here
|
| Accuracy |
Clause 1(i) of the Press
Complaints Commission Code states that "newspapers and
periodicals must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading
or distorted material". Clear guidance should be given on
what needs to be done to ensure accuracy. Editors must be able to
demonstrate that the necessary steps have been taken. |
|
|
| Credibility |
Journalists must make every
effort to establish the credibility of scientists and their work.
They should note that a scientist's professional credibility may
be restricted to the area of science in which he or she has
specialised. Eloquence is no substitute for expertise in the
provision of scientific opinion. This means that journalists must
be sufficiently informed about the science behind a story if they
are to establish the credibility of an interviewee. To assist the
media in this respect, the Royal Society plans to publish a
directory that provides a list of 'media-friendly' scientists and
their areas of expertise. |
|
|
| Balance |
Newspapers may suppose that they
have produced 'balanced' reports by quoting opposing views from
scientists about a particular issue. While the intention may be to
present both sides of an argument, a majority view on that matter
may be held within the scientific community, and the opposing view
is held by only a quixotic minority of individuals. Although the
majority view may occasionally prove to be incorrect at a later
date, such instances are exceptions rather than the rule. While we
appreciate that it may be difficult for journalists to take a poll
of scientific views, it is in the public interest that journalists
identify, whenever possible, a majority view. |
|
|
| Uncertainty |
There are many emerging areas
of science that are subject to uncertainty. Although it is
sometimes difficult to convey the scale of this uncertainty,
journalists should resist the temptation to quote the most
sensational of alternative interpretations as though it were fact.
The scientific community must convey a sense of alternative
interpretations in an accurate and meaningful way. Scientists and
journalists should engage in a dialogue about how such
uncertainties in science should be presented. Furthermore,
journalists should be wary of regarding uncertainty about a
scientific issue as an indication that all views, no matter how
unorthodox, have the same legitimacy. As the President of the
Royal Society noted in his 1998 Anniversary Address: "The
fact that, at a particular time, science cannot provide an answer
to a problem does not mean that anything is possible. There are
limits provided by existing knowledge." |
|
|
| Legitimacy |
Some of the means to help
journalists assess the legitimacy of scientific claims are already
in place. A cornerstone of the quality assurance process in
science is that new theories and experimental results have been
exposed to peer review. Although this process is not infallible,
it is a good indicator of whether or not a piece of research has
been conducted properly and the conclusions drawn are justified.
Journalists should be encouraged to treat with healthy scepticism
work that has not been approved through peer review, including
information that can be accessed through the internet. |
|
|
| Advice |
The key point is that journalists
must have access to authoritative advice about the credibility and
legitimacy of the science that they wish to report. Most national
newspapers have specialist science journalists. The science staff
should be consulted about science stories covered by colleagues
who are not scientists. |
|
|
| Responsibility |
Although it is important for
scientists to communicate via the media with the public about
their work, the scientific community must act responsibly when
dealing with journalists. Some scientists do seek publicity for
work that furthers their careers, and may make exaggerated claims
about the significance of scientific 'breakthroughs'. It is not in
the public interest for the media to be used in this way. We
believe that the scientific community should work with the media
to develop mechanisms through which journalists can quickly
establish the authenticity of a scientific story. These could
involve scientific advisers who can offer well-informed guidance
within the timescales demanded by modern journalistic practice. |
|
BACK TO THE TOP
|
|
