Final Report Editor Ulrike Felt June 2003

Media and New Media in the UK 196
much less willing to travel to give media interviews in comparison to US colleagues.
Bad media experiences, a concern that popularisation was looked down upon by
colleagues and possibly research councils was also identified as potential limiting
problems.
In a more constructive light, it was also suggested that universities should ensure that
ISDN lines are installed to enable on-site interviews and that press officers – as the key
link between universities and the media could play a central role in developing a more
positive outcome. As Roberts argues "Occasions that bring press officers, scientists
and journalists together to share best practise and build networks offer one of the most
positive ways forward".
Science, media and public controversy
The recent and current relationship between science and the UK media has been
marked by 'bitter recriminations' according to Hargreaves and Ferguson (2000). Polling
suggests that only one in ten of British scientists believe that recent coverage of BSE
and GM food in the British press has clarified the general public's understanding of
science (MORI, 2000: 31). This, as MORI notes, reflects ‘scientists low level of trust in
the media to portray science accurately’ (MORI, 2000: 31).
A MORI poll conducted in 1999-2000 found that 35% of scientists interviewed identified
the UK media as one of the greatest barriers to greater understanding of science
amongst the public. Reflecting on the GM debate, Prime Minster Blair in 1999 stated
the view that:
‘Parts of the media have conducted such an extraordinary campaign of distortion, its
hard to know where to begin. Anyone who has dared to raise even the smallest hand in
protest is accused of being either corrupt or Dr Strangelove’ (cited in Hargreaves and
Ferguson, 2000).
As a result of this sense of discord, Professor Susan Greenfeld in her Millenium lecture
in 1999 proposed ‘clear codes of practise ‘between scientists and journalists and the
establishing of day long science updates reported in full to the public by the media’
(cited in Hargreaves and Ferguson, 2000:1). The Royal Society has followed through
with a code of conduct for newspaper editors. In a parallel development, the Royal
Institution has set up a Science Media Centre which will put approved experts in touch
with journalists. The former development has been endorsed by the House of Lords
Select Committee on Science and Technology who have recommended that the Press
Complaints Commision adopt this measure. However, other critics remain less
convinced. Wakeford (2001) has argued that such a code marks ‘the first time since
World War II that the rights of free speech of scientists have been threatened’.