The Royal Society of Medicine hosted the Sense About Science Annual Lecture yesterday evening. The lecture, entitled ‘Epidemics and refuseniks: the birth of state responsibility’ was led by Professor Richard Evans, a historian from the University of Cambridge and attended by 250 delegates from relevant disciplines. Prof Evans talk discussed the most effective way to “contribute to the communication of common sense about science” and noted the mistrust between scientists and politicians by using a number of illustrative case studies on public health.

The first example was that of the 19th century cholera outbreak, which was facilitated by the opposing beliefs about the cause of the disease. Some were convinced cholera was caused by an infection, while political influence led others to believe it to be the result of a vapor. Prof Evans then went on to discuss the failure of South African government to acknowledge and tackle Aids by initially claiming that medication actually caused Aids, invoking public skepticism and hindering treatment. Since then, the number of retro-viral treatments given to those infected can be indicative of political circumstances and beliefs. In Britain, Evans explored how those advising action on BSE (Mad Cows Disease) in the 1980’s were slow to respond due to the demand for a high level conviction in their research results from politicians, which was at the time, not possible. This created a “massive public distrust in scientific opinion”, and created scope for future misplaced opinions such as the perceived health risks associated with being given the measles, mumps and rubella (MRR) vaccine in 1990’s. The case of MMR was exuberated by media reports which focused on worst case scenarios that were still scientifically uncertain, and have since been showed to be false. The result was a decrease in the number of children being given the vaccine, and a subsequent increase in MMR (1348 cases) resulting in 2 documented deaths which may have been preventable.

These case studies demonstrated that scientific uncertainty, political agenda, and the media’s pursuit of a good story often hinder attempts to explain scientific research. The complex relationship between government, science and society can result in politicians choosing to support science that suits their own ideology, scientists that expect people to trust them despite uncertainty, and society being caught between the two. The influence of the media on the public also contributes to a lack of trust and understanding as journalists are most likely to base their reports on the worst case scenario of a predicted event, making for a more high impact story which can sometimes lead to unnecessary panic. It was clear from the lecture that scientists need to continue to improve communication between science, policy and the media, and that the way in which those parties deal with uncertainty needs to be addressed.

Should news be presented as a ‘view from nowhere’ or should science journalists bring in their own opinions when reporting science stories? That was the central topic of a debate last night at the Royal Institution, chaired by Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre. The panellists discussing the motion were Mark Henderson of the Times, Ceri Thomas, editor of the BBC R4 Today Programme, Steve Rayner, Professor of Science and Civilisation at Oxford University and Ed Yong, Information Manager at Cancer Research UK and a prominent communicator of science.

Mark Henderson viewed a science journalist’s job as absolutely to ’second guess what’s right’ and to be as accurate as possible when reporting. There’s a fundamental difference between balance and fairness, he said. Science journalists should strive to be fair, but lending equal weight to both sides of an argument when the evidence suggests otherwise is misleading. Mark suggested that having an opinion is helpful to good journalism, making reporters go the extra mile to research and find out the truth for themselves. As long as opinions are transparent they can be a force for good.

Ceri Thomas argued fundamentally against the idea that science journalists should take sides. This should happen no more than a political correspondent should take a side in favour of a particular political party, or a sports writer report in favour of a particular football team. Science doesn’t deserve special treatment. Yes, journalism should take the side of reason and evidence, and yes, this will often be in science’s favour, but scientists get it wrong if they think that reason and evidence are all that matters: emotional and irrational factors matter too, in reality, and so science needs to stand its ground in arguments with these. When news outlets such as the BBC give too much credence to the emotional/ irrational however, that’s when they are getting reporting wrong.

Steve Rayner made some very interesting points about how policy debates have been re-framed as debates about the quality of the science over the years. He highlighted climate change negotiations as a particular example, arguing that by 1992 climate change science, although flawed, provided evidence which was at least as strong as that which Governments use to justify making decisions on monetary and defence policy. Since then society has been debating the quality of the science but actually what we are really debating is how to move forward with difficult and differing policy options. It’s not the case that ‘more and better’ science will solve the seemingly intractable problem of how to tackle climate change, and actually, Steve argued, framing the solution to the problem in one particular way – via the Kyoto protocol – which he described as the result of ‘collusion’ by scientists and policy-makers – has prevented more innovative solutions being taken forward.

Ed Yong agreed largely with Mark Henderson, arguing that if a journalist didn’t provide analysis and context for their science report, someone else would – in the age of blogging and twitter, when anyone can have an opinion. It is the duty of journalists to state where the consenus lies. You can get a plurality of views without these necessarily having to be at extremes and at odds with one another. Overall, Ed argued, transparency and ‘taking sides with the truth’ were the most vital qualities in a piece of science journalism.

Amongst points raised through a very interesting discussion with the audience, Alok Jha, science writer with the Guardian, asked Mark whether it was in fact appropriate for science journalists to bring their opinions into their writing. This was fine if this was a writer trusted and known by the reader, but what if you were reading the work by someone you hadn’t come across before: how could you know whether their work was objective? Mark maintained that adding interpretation from the journalist could get the journalist, and the reader, closer to a nuanced understanding of the truth. Overall, Steve Rayner argued, we need to create a society where the public and policy-makers can make informed judgements themselves about science news, through general scientific literacy.

Mark Henderson is organising two more events in this series -one on genomics and one a post-Comprehensive Spending Review Q and A with David Willetts, Science Minister (26 October). See the RI website for details.

The Royal Institution is running an evening event on Thursday 23rd September, exploring neutrality in scientific reporting by the media.

Guest curator Mark Henderson (Science Editor of The Times) leads an expert panel who will debate the key issue of journalistic neutrality in science. What should journalists do when one side of an argument has more scientific credibility and support than another? And to what extent do they have a responsibility to weigh up competing opinions, to decide whether some are more equal than others?

Find out more and book tickets (£8/£6 or £4 for RI members)