We are pro science, pro evidence and pro the scientific method. Most scientists would in any case expect us to come down on the same side as the weight of good quality evidence. But I am still adamant that the SMC does not adopt positions on these issues. In the end, I think we agreed to disagree and I have since lived with the fact that many will describe us as pro GM, climate alarmist or pro statins. The strength of the scientific consensus on these issues is such that most of our output goes one way. A circular and admittedly drunken argument ensued. I remember years ago when a BBC producer I was drinking with reacted with scorn when I said the SMC were not pro genetic modification (GM).
Some climate scientists were cross with the SMC for handing sceptics a gift and quack buster extraordinaire David Colquhoun tweeted, ‘ More reasons to be concerned about Other friends wrote to us expressing concern about the unintended consequences of SMC briefings – with one saying that policy makers were furious at having to deal with the fallout from our climate briefing and others worried that the briefing on the CFS/ME trial would allow the only private company offering the treatment to profit by over-egging preliminary findings.Ĭommon to each case is the issue of what the SMC should do when faced with findings that can be misused or misrepresented by others. But this time the SMC also came under fire from our friends in science. So far so normal. Also normal was the seizing of selected headlines by the critics of science from climate sceptics to ME activists. If you had only read the headlines for the CFS/ME story you may conclude that the treatment tested at Bristol might be worth a try if you are blighted by the illness, when in truth the author said repeatedly that the findings would first have to be replicated in a bigger trial. Some headlines on the climate study were a bit dubious, inevitably lacking the nuance of the copy beneath them but you can hardly blame sub-editors who have been putting ‘worse than expected’ headlines on climate stories for a decade for relishing what seemed to be a surprising new twist. Well within the Science Media Centre’s (SMC) boundaries of decent coverage on issues at the extreme end of contentiousness. The coverage for both briefings was broadly fine. Both briefings fitted the usual mould: top quality scientists explaining their work to smart science journalists and making technical and complex studies accessible to readers. The other reported on findings from a clinical trial on a controversial treatment for CFS/ME denounced as pseudoscience by many, which revealed that some patients benefitted from the technique. But it was the criticism from within the scientific community that we had not anticipated.Ī new study on climate change, published in Nature Geoscience, showed we might have a little more time in which to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avert potentially dangerous climate change. The subjects are complex and contentious, and there is always the potential for jarring or simplistic headlines and strong reactions from the vocal critics of research in these fields. Last week we ran press conferences on climate change and CFS/ME.
This blog contains the thoughts of the author rather than representing the work or policy of the Science Media Centre.