Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Sense about science

2006; Wiley; Volume: 7; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/asl.132

1530-261X

Chris Tyler,

Climate Change Communication and Perception

Science is wonderfully varied. Population geneticists typically do not have much to say to meteorologists; the concerns of entomologists generally differ from those of cardio-thoracic surgeons; and no one fully understands the problems preoccupying quantum physicists. But it seems that all scientists, no matter what their subject, raise one complaint in common: they often despair of the state of public discussion of science and, in particular, the way it is reported in the media. Sense About Science is a charity that works with scientists to promote good science and evidence in public debates. We were established in 2002 while polarised public debates on the safety of GM crops, British beef, mobile phones and the MMR vaccine were being played out in the media. Over the past few years, we have found that there is terrific potential for changing the climate of discussion, even in those areas of controversy where feelings run high and misinformation is close to being entrenched. It is understandable that scientists get frustrated about how science is presented in public discussion. Debates about scientific issues can easily become detached from the evidence and it is easy to blame the media because they are the most visible manifestation of the problem. However, the thirst for scandalising headlines that bear little relation to the story, and stories that bear little relation to the evidence, generally resides in the campaigning part of the media, which is a very small subsection of the whole. While all news outlets falter on accuracy from time to time, it is worth remembering that the anti-mobile phone masts campaign, the anti-MMR campaign and the anti-GM campaigns were generally played out in a minority of newspapers. Just as scientists point out that ‘chemical linked to cancer’ sticks in the public imagination much more readily than ‘chemical unlikely to cause cancer’, so science journalists too feel aggrieved that few scientists remember the many times they get it right. Oftentimes, the source of misleading claims in public discussion is elsewhere. The struggle of campaigning organisations for public attention often pushes them towards exaggeration and what is commonly called ‘scare tactics’. Journalists point out that a clutch of campaigning press releases crosses their desks daily, usually with the shock headline already written for them. (Good journalists do, of course, consult more widely than these press releases.) More significantly, official policy reports and legislation have become increasingly inclined towards precautionary measures or advice rather than risk assessments. Sir William Stewart's declaration that he didn't want his grandchildren to use mobile phones was a gift to headline writers. It is sometimes tempting to see the growth in these precautionary caveats as an inclination to cover one's back, post-BSE—especially where they do not reflect the scientific findings and only serve to confuse the public. We have seen this recently with a Government-funded study of people living close to power lines that concluded that there is no evidence of damage to health, but was accompanied by speculation about the need for precautionary protective measures. Not surprisingly, some people concluded that the measures prove there is a danger. We have recently worked with the radiological community to raise awareness of an EC Directive to limit exposure to unknown hazards from MRI scans for which no evidence—or even a strong hypothetical case—has yet emerged. Quite apart from the threat to clinical MRI and research across Europe, it is again a measure that, in the context of real lives and daily judgements, leads to an understandable conclusion among non-experts that MRI is a risk and, by default, we pay very little social attention to the very real dangers of the X-rays that MRI scans often replace. Looking at where confusion and misinformation come from can help us to nail down more specifically the problems to be addressed, in place of a vague frustration with public discussion. It helps us to find a plan for action—from briefing family GPs to complaining about a Government department's press release—rather than a council of despair. But there is a prior point. Scientists, while often not responsible for bad science in public discussion, can take a lot more responsibility for putting it right. One of the contributors to the poorly informed debate previously seen on issues like the MMR vaccine, and the use of animals in medical research, was the reticence of experts to step into the fray: there were issues on the table, but the chairs were empty. It is worrying that, despite the fashion for science communication, ‘dialogue’ and ‘public engagement’, there is little attention paid to confronting difficult issues when it matters most. After Andrew Wakefield made ill-advised statements about the MMR vaccine at a press conference in March 1998, scientists and scientific bodies reacted without cohesion and generally said very little. During the summer of 1998 the anti-vaccination pressure groups' campaigns gained momentum and by the time scientists and Department of Health experts began to respond, in 1999, the idea of a link with autism and overloading a child's immune system was already firmly planted in the public imagination. At Sense About Science, we try to give a voice to good science by putting scientists in the chairs at the right time. We use a database, which we call Evidence Base, to coordinate more than 1000 scientists whose expertise ranges from nuclear physics to psychology and their seniority from post-doctorates to Nobel Laureates. We are fortunate to have so many leaders in their fields who have committed time and energy to supporting our work of promoting evidence on an ad hoc basis. We monitor public discussion and intervene with the help of our Evidence Base scientists, which frequently involves correcting misleading information published in the public domain or presented by opinion makers. We also field a wide variety of requests on scientific matters: from parent groups concerned about the effect of plasticisers on the safety of babies' bottles, to local authorities asking for information about dioxins from incinerators; from employment agencies wanting advice on clinical trials, to a government department on explaining complex scientific information to non-experts. Where a subject is repeatedly cropping up, and scientists find themselves constantly putting out small fires, we look at ways to give a much wider group of people the tools to spot bad science and evaluate things for themselves. A recent example of this was a working group looking at common misconceptions in stories and claims about chemicals, which led to the production of a briefing document called Making Sense of Chemical Stories. We took this challenge on for three reasons. Firstly, scientists were contacting us several times a week to draw attention to inaccurate reports and misleading claims, usually along the lines of ‘natural chemicals are good and synthetic chemicals are bad for you'. Secondly, the repetition of unfounded claims had become particularly frequent because of stunts conducted by groups campaigning for the success of European regulations over the past year. Readers may recall the regular biomonitoring results that publicised minute traces of synthetic chemicals in the body. These caught the imagination of the public by using celebrities and pregnant women and by relying on the fact that few people know we are talking in parts per billion. Most importantly, the growth of the lifestyle sector has meant that unfounded fads about chemicals and our bodies—that our bodies are drains that we can flush and detox, that we need to help our livers get rid of all the toxins from food we eat, and so on—had moved from the margins to the mainstream. Stories about alternatives and ‘chemical free living’ vie for space in the food, family and health supplements, programmes and publications. Scientists almost never speak to this group of writers and there is a growing disconnection between the lifestyle view of chemicals—that they can be avoided and that synthetic chemicals are bad—and the chemical realities of the world. Making Sense of Chemical Stories was written specifically for health and lifestyle writers. The report was scheduled for the end of January, but knowing that after Christmas the media is awash with various ‘detox’ diets we released one section early: scientists say ‘Drop ‘detox’: have a glass of tap water and get an early night!’ The subject was well covered, from front-page spreads to phone-ins on Radio 1; we had a dozen scientists doing back-to-back interviews for 5 days. It surprised many of those who tell us regularly that the media just print bad news: there is also enthusiasm for the ‘corrective’ story, especially when misinformation has gone so far that reality is counterintuitive! Scientists bring something different to the party. They can provide a perspective derived from adherence to a method that puts data at the centre of decision-making. (Although, sometimes they speak as punters with opinions, like everyone else, and we need to be clear about that.) But it is more than just ‘the expert voice’ that scientists can offer to improve on bad science in public life. People need more help to sift through the many claims that come their way, whether through news headlines, internet searches or product promotion. One of the best ways to do this is to start to share and popularise more of the reasoning that scientists use. While peer review of research results might sound a little mundane, it is instructive that a short guide we produced, called ‘I don’t know what to believe’, which explains the process, has been requested nearly 63 000 times since the beginning of this year and is now used by all the major health helplines. While our small office team, and often our Evidence Base scientists, feel stretched responding to the many requests for help that we now receive, that does not stop us discovering new areas where we can build the relationship between public groups, scientists and good science. We continue to urge scientists and others with an interest in discussion about science to alert us to problems and misinformation. Later this year we plan to produce a briefing called Making Sense of the Weather. Concern about the causes and implications of weather patterns have become prevalent in many forums, ranging from parliamentary debates to Hollywood films. Over the coming year, Sense About Science plans to equip public discussion with a framework for making sense of how weather predictions are developed, what they mean and how changes in weather patterns are interpreted. If you want to find out more about Sense About Science or learn more about how to support our work, you can contact Chris Tyler at ctyler@senseaboutscience. org.