Science, the public and the missing MPs

I would like to start this post by saying that Dr Evan Harris is someone I have a huge amount of respect for and I write this, partly, in the hope he will read this and let me know what he thinks. At last week's Talk Science Event at the British Library (Twitter #BLTS, podcast), Dr Harris bemoaned the lack of interest in science shown by party leaders and MPs. The cause, he diagnosed, of this disinterest is the broadcast media. Now, it would be hard to say that science has not had it's fair share on TV recently so I assume the theory is that until TV news takes science policy seriously, serious politicians won't either.

Whilst that might be true, the broadcast media does not chose, at random, what to cover. To make it on the News at 10, a story has been judged to be of sufficient interest to enough people. If science policy does not make it onto the news, that suggests to me that too few people find it engaging.

This brings me to another thing Dr Harris bemoaned, Public Engagement. Listening to the recording it appears he is far from convinced that the public should be given a say in how science develops. The argument runs: we elect our respresentatives, and it is they who should make decisions about what science is done, how it is regulated and used, not the unwashed masses. Worse still, the kind of public engagement that gives people a say in science decision making is a drain on researchers, whose time is better spent doing what they do best - research.

Dr Harris is far from unique in holding these views, and to be fair a flick through the Twitter feed of #Talkfest held later in the week suggests he is not completely anti-engagement. However, I find the juxtaposition of these two bemoanments suprising in a man normally so well argued. There are two problems, as I see it:

1. Is parliament capable and legitimate? The lack of interest party leaders and new MPs show in science surely undermines the idea that an elected parliament is an effective forum to debate and then regulate science. Arguably, many MPs are no better informed than your average guy on the street and more susceptible to Daily Mail politics. The cynic in me wonders if a disinterested parliament, which just lets scientists get on with it, would be some people's ideal body to scrutinise science, but I very much doubt Dr Harris is one of them.

More fundamentally, the basis of representative democracy is electing people you believe will represent you and your best interests. If, as we saw, people don't see science as an issue upon which to elect someone and no party was at all detailed on what they would do with science, how can the current parliament claim a mandate to govern science?

2. Getting science on the news. If, as I suspect he is, Dr Harris is right that party leaders will only engage with an issue when it gets onto the news, the real issue must be how to acheive this for science policy. Look at the issues that dominate: health, crime, schools. These are all policies that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives. More, the link between policy and what happens to you is widely understood.

Science is different, or at least science policy is. Science decisions by a government will, largely, only effect the whole population in the medium and long term and fewer people have a grasp of what research spending means for them. I would argue, then, that to get science policy on the news we must give it more immediacy. And what better way of doing that than to bring it alive, give people more of a stake in decisions and communicate? In otherwords, engage!

I would humbly suggest that more engagement, more dialogue and yes, more real, ordinary, not perfectly informed people having a say in how public money is spent on science is necessary. Without this I fear we will never see science rise up the political agenda and we will forever be at the whim of the disinterested, vulnerable to Daily Mail parliamentarians. Get the public interested, the news and the politicians that watch it, will surely follow.

Is blogging journalism? (and what the question should be)

Blogging is heralded by some, mostly bloggers, as the answer to crap science journalism and the crisis heralded for the business model of traditional journalism. Blogging, they contend, is journalism just published by a different, cheaper medium. Even better, instead of generalists writing half informed articles further butchered by mindless sub-editors, content is written by experts in their field.

On the face of it, this sounds an attractive future and perhaps the potential loss of science journalists from national news outlets is nothing to mourn. Yet the debate over the desirability of this possible future, or indeed if blogging is journalism, rages on. Ed Yong wrote a good critique of this debate a while back (although I contend it's not 2006 to still talk about this).

On one level, and as Yong points out, this is a silly debate. Blogging is no more or less journalism than writing something that goes into a newspaper – the medium through which words are made public is a moot point. What matters is the meaning of those words, where they came from, the process by which they came to be written and who they are intended for.

For the record, journalism has many definitions but my favourite is writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing. But I really don’t think the definition of journalism is that interesting.

What I am much more interested is, from a science perspective, can writing about science on blogs replace writing about science in newspapers? My own feeling is categorically not yet. This is simply because, like them or loathe them, newspapers command an authority that blogs do not. Read something in a newspaper and, whilst you know there is an editorial line to toe, you expect that the story has been written as an attempt to represent rather than twist the facts. You might disagree, and “editorial line” is a euphemism that contains a multitude of sins, but I still trust what I read in a paper more than what I read in a blog I have no knowledge of. Newspapers have a brand to maintain, a reputation to uphold, a bank account to ravage with defamation cases. Blogs can fold and reform at no cost.

This becomes clearer in the inverse. The blogosphere is full of misinformation on science, from vaccines to climate change, but the science community are not nearly as exorcised by this as they are by a single bad headline in the Express. Climategate became a story when mainstream papers picked it up, not when the blogs were spinning. This is because they know that the Express has much greater potential to cause harm because it is seen, by some, as a trusted source of information, an opinion former. Newspapers matter because millions of people read and believe what is in them. The same simply is not true of most, if not all, blogs.

This fact is, at once, implicitly understood by those that call for the heads of journalists when they get things wrong and ignored by the same people when they suggest blogs can replace them. Until blogs command the same kind of respect, authority and balance as, rightly or wrongly, journalists that publish in newspapers are held to, they will not replace them. Perhaps the answer is a curated site, like Comment is free, or Discover Blogs, but we know they are not immune to controversy. Furthermore, what level of curation is required and would that kill the very thing that makes blogs attractive?

The question I think we should ask is will blogs meet the needs of the science community and a diverse readership? Working out how to provide blogs the kind of authority newspapers enjoy will go some way to answering that question but that will not be trivial to do and, to me, appears some way off.

Science: Funding and Influence

In this year's Sense About Science Annual Lecture (how does one get invited to these things?) Fiona Godlee, Editor of the BMJ, makes a strong case for more independence in science. Godlee cites the various studies showing that clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies are far more likely to show positive results than the average.

This is hardly new, many people have written convincingly on the subject, and (whilst I'm not sure it's the final word on the matter) the Scientists for Global Responsibility report released last year gives a fairly comprehensive view of the problems. However, coming from the editor of a journal responsible for publishing these trials, Godlee's argument carries more weight. What did come as something of a surprise was Godlee's proposed solution to the problem of influence in medical research and policy - cut out conflict of interest completely.

Whether this is plausible, or even desirable, in a world where private money funds a huge amount of research is the million dollar question but it is refreshing to hear someone in a position of authority in the research community taking a stand on principle. It also got me thinking - if source of funding is a factor in research findings, how secure are other fields?

To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting that big pharma actively asks scientists to massage their figures, and I don't think medical scientists in receipt of industrial money intend to do so. However, the numbers speak for themselves, so there must be more subtle influence going on. What concerns me is how other funding sources might influence results, specifically how public money might have the same effect.

The recent history of science funding has seen an increased emphasis on the impact of research and a focus on subjects addressing national challenges. Whilst on one level I get this, who doesn't want us to get the most from our investment in science, who would argue that a silver bullet to climate change wouldn't be great? But if industrial funding can have such a profound, if subliminal, effect on results, can public money, given with such an explicit desire for impact, do the same? Arguably, the pressures are equivalent - come up with results that can fix something or make money and your chances of more funding are improved. Even a more fundamental focus on citation metrics could have influence given the received wisdom that it is easier to publish a positive result. If findings are inflated, will the very desire for impact undermine the ability to take publicly funded research out of the lab?

I don't know if this is a real effect and I find it harder still to think how to measure it. Presumably publicly funded research is the control for studies looking at corporate influence, but is there a universal benchmark? What money can truly be considered without strings? It may be that one could chart indicators such as average time to complete a research project, number of papers per grant, nominal positivity of results, against time. This might show research output changing as funding models change. On its own, this would prove nothing - these could just be legitimate signs of research getting better, more efficient - but would be a start.

It's tricky, and I don't have an answer. I sure no-one would argue that impact is not a great thing to have, I'm just not sure it's simple question of ask and ye shall get.

Science Journalism: right or left?

In his essay My Country: Right or Left? George Orwell argued that whilst he was, evidently, prepared to fight fascism in another country, he could not fight against his own – regardless of its politics. Even if we’re not talking about nationalism I’m sure many people can identify with this – we choose “our own” and stick with them for better or worse.

Jeremy Laurence’s critique of Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column blog and darling of the sceptic fraternity, has rekindled a debate between him and Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, about their different approaches to science journalists. Both are clearly passionate about science journalism. Fox regularly argues that whilst there are examples of bad coverage, the vast majority of articles by specialist science journalists are good and we should all champion them. Goldacre counters that whilst there are some good examples of coverage, the majority of science coverage is of the rubbish "causes or cures cancer" type and, by misleading people about illness and treatments, a public health issue.

Fox dismisses this kind of coverage as “not science journalism” and silly. Goldacre argues that to dismiss this stuff, when people are unlikely to make the same distinction, is silly itself. Reading the subtext of their posts, I don’t think they actually disagree on much, but their choice of emphasis is instructive. Fox appears to have made her camp with specialist science journalists and is unlikely to say anything to threaten her relationship with them. Goldacre has made a name for himself by mercilessly exposing crap journalism and sees any mention of the good stuff as a distraction from a real problem. He is unlikely to deviate too far from the received wisdom that journalists are either lazy or wicked.

Both would clearly like better coverage of science in the news, so whose approach is more likely to bring this about? Fox’s bet seems to be that supporting science specialists, increasing their status and encouraging scientists to talk to them is the best way of improving coverage. The consensus seems to be that coverage has improved since the dark days of the early naughties, when MMR was fresh in the minds and the SMC was set up, so who is to argue with her approach? One could criticise for going native and getting into bed with what some scientists see as “the enemy” but it makes sense to me that you engage with the people best placed to change what you want - those that write it.

As Laurence’s ire demonstrates, this is in stark contrast with the crap-busting approach. Goldacre doesn't have to compromise on his principles and is free to vilify journalists he sees as complicit in misleading the public. But will his approach affect the change he seeks? I think there are limits to its potential, because he hardly endears himself to journalists and they’re unlikely to listen to him. I’m sure Goldacre could counter that he has no faith in journalists’ intention to improve, that the problems he identifies are endemic and that we should be looking at alternative models of reporting science. I have heard him argue as much, and his ideas about getting more experts to contribute to newspapers are impressive. Further, he could fairly point to the many thousands of readers on his blog and others like it as evidence that an alternative exists and has mass appeal.

But, and this is the crux, how many of the readers of Bad Science are misled by the exposed nonsense? I suspect very few. Most of these readers will have a science background, or at least a sustained interest in science. They are as capable of seeing through the headlines as Goldacre, if less gifted at deliciously dissecting the misrepresentations. People that he worries about being taken in are, I assume, not so interested in science, maybe haven’t had the benefit of post-18 education and, I fear, are unlikely to read his blog.

That’s a fairly paternalistic view actually, and I’m much less pessimistic about “most people.” I believe most people read the cause or cure coverage with more than a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the very people Goldacre fears for when he reads the latest Express headline about vaccines or cancer, are the last people who will read what he has to say. Ultimately, apart from a host of adoring and like-minded fans, how much would he achieve were his the only approach to this problem?

In my view, to make lasting change, you have to get involved. Vitriol serves a valuable role in highlighting an issue and science needs Ben Goldacre to defend it in the newspapers. But without someone willing to get their hands dirty and find solutions to them, the problems we all see aren’t going anywhere. Each will stick to their own tribes but my money is on the Foxes to fix things.

Climate science, scepticism and cynicism – we need better language

I must start with confession. I happen to think that climate change is happening and that its primary cause is the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. I have reached this conclusion as a lay person (not my field) who has made a reasonable effort to be as informed about this issue as I can. I have considered the evidence, and the theory. I find it compelling that after years of humanity emitting CO₂ in huge quantity, atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has increased dramatically. Coincidence? I think not.

I am equally compelled by the observation that CO₂ absorbs heat and that more of it in the atmosphere should mean more heat retained by the world – a hotter climate. When scientists present evidence of a changing climate I greet this with a degree of credulity because it fits with well established, well argued and, above all well evidenced theory. I am not alone in this...

Now for a second confession - I would also describe myself as a climate sceptic. I say this because I think, despite any warm reception I might give it, I fundamentally believe that all evidence should be interrogated and verified. Furthermore, in the case of climate science, there are clearly uncertainties in terms of how climate will change in response to increasing heat being retained by the atmosphere, how quickly and at what cost.

Professor Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientist, recently attacked climate sceptics for making unreasonable claims. More recently, Lord Rees – President of the Royal Society and Astronomer Royal – described science as organised scepticism during his first Reith Lecture. Of course, they are both right and agree with each other. The trouble is, their argument is let down by their choice of language.

So I would like to propose we try a new language. One could argue there is a fine line between scepticism and cynicism, but the connotations are clear. Foul play in football is cynical. Honestly questioning the evidence for homeopathy, say, is sceptical. There is a big difference and only one is dishonest. People who honestly scrutinise the evidence behind climate science, and the projections scientists make about the future of the climate, should be called climate sceptics. I, for one, would see that as a compliment.

A new term, climate cynics, should be reserved for people who wilfully distort evidence, seek controversy for its own sake and undermine public trust in mitigation measures on behalf of their big-oil paymasters. These people will tell you it is also getting hotter on Neptune so it must be the Sun and not us. What they don’t tell you is that Neptune’s year is 164 Earth years and its Southern Hemisphere is heading into summer... might it be getting hotter on Neptune? Cynical is the right word.

So, now we have that sorted I’d like to recommend a great iPhone app – Skeptical Science. It’s a lot better than a first reading of Beddington’s comments might lead you to think.