MRS
Journalists’
curiosity is broad, a bit like a horizontal line of thoughts.
Scientists, however, are adept at vertical thinking. When journalists
try to penetrate their in-depth knowledge it can be problematic since
two perpendicular lines meet in only one point. The public understanding
of science may well be that common centre of interest. A discussion held
at a Royal Society of Television meeting last November echoed
various opinions on the subject. Andrew Derrington is an academic who took the step to also become a science journalist. In other words he made the two lines become parallel. He explains: “Scientists are not interested in answers, they are interested in questions. Once you have all the answers, you are out of business.” But research funding bodies are now encouraging scientists to share their knowledge with a wider public.
Yet the growing interest that scientists show for the media can lead to uneasy situations. James Wilkinson from the BBC says: “A row like the BSE crisis was good TV. A scientist like Richard Lacey spoke about a field he was not specialised in, but he was willing to talk to the media at a time when they were desperate to interview anybody about it.” Editorial choices are sometimes a matter of convenience.
Similarly, broadcasters rely heavily on audience ratings. At the dawn of digital TV this trend has been reinforced by the distorting influence of American channels. Sara Ramsden, commissioning editor for science at Channel 4 says: “films made by Channel 4 are sometimes improved by the financial support of the Discovery Channel.”
But the other side of the coin is that “there is less science content in American television.” Paradoxically, the price to pay for more British science on American television is to reduce the science content. Sara Ramsden justifies: “Science programme on TV must encourage the audience to read about it afterwards.” But do many people take that step?
Adapting to the audience remains the key. Susan Watts of BBC's Newsnight believes that there is a difference between art and science subjects. She says: “You do not need to mention who Jane Austen was each time you refer to Pride and Prejudice.” Since the audience has little scientific background, she says: “A gene has to be redefined every time you use the word.” And James Wilkinson to confirm “If we start at a more approachable level than political and economical stories, I think that we are not doing badly.”