The SMC made that happen. And we could not have done the same without them. Yes, we could have gone through the same motions, and certainly we could have made the same number of phone calls and asked the same questions every day. But I have no doubt the people we could have talked to, their credibility, their answers, would have been inferior. Less intelligent, less scrutinized, less newsworthy.
Susannah Eliott and Peter Griffin, reply:
A criticism often leveled at the Science Media Centres is that on some issues the commentary we gather from scientists is one sided and doesn’t represent a range of views.
The reality is that it is not the mandate of the SMCs to seek out opposing views from scientists. It may make for more colorful news copy, but it does the discipline of science communication no favors.
Our job is to reflect the balance of evidence on a science-related issue. Often there is disagreement among scientists and our round-ups and briefings will reflect this. To serve the needs of the media we work to extremely tight timeframes and the willingness of scientists to put themselves forward at short notice determines the tone of commentary offered.
But just as often, scientists appear to be speaking in unison, something that will naturally raise the suspicions of any good journalist. Such was the case for a period during the Fukushima nuclear crisis in March and April of 2011.
With engineers still struggling to get the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor under control, dire predictions were circulating about the potential worst-case scenarios for a meltdown.
However, many of the scientists the SMC featured in its briefings in the days following the tragedy provided information that appeared to allay some of the worst fears - these comments were based on the evidence at hand, and in some cases, their experience of the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl, the world’s most serious nuclear accident.
The scientists we quoted were asked to offer their expertise, not to make pronouncements about the future of nuclear power. Debate was already raging about exactly that issue, but with no certainty about the long-term impact of the incidents at Fukushima, it was not the time to add fuel to the fire. Later the SMCs were able to facilitate some of that debate.
SMCs are not in the business of quashing debate. Society must hear from a range of voices on issues such as the pros and cons of nuclear power (politicians, lobby groups, industry, etc.) - the role of an SMC is to ensure that the scientific community is one of those voices.
But as the crisis was playing out, what journalists needed was quality commentary from experts on the issues of critical importance, chief amongst them, the risks to the health of millions of Japanese citizens and the effort to get the reactor under control and limit the spread of nuclear material.
When crises occur, from pandemics and bushfires to oil spills and food scares, this is how SMCs operate - collating evidence-based information for journalists, and allowing it to inform the debate that will play out regardless of our efforts.
In doing so, we unapologetically focus on the balance of evidence. Reflecting that balance is the best service we can offer in a world awash with opinion.
Kate Kelland, reply:
As Peter and Susannah note, there was criticism of the SMCs during the Fukushima crisis that they were pushing a pro-nuclear agenda, and that the scientists they quoted in their “rapid reactions” and “roundups” always seemed to downplay the contamination and health risks. For critics, it seemed, the nuanced differences between being pro-science and pro-nuclear were difficult to see.
In my own newsroom this became a hot debate and one that, at times, kept me awake at night as I worried about the balance of our stories.
Because the SMC staff in London is very approachable, these worries were something we journalists discussed often and at length with them. We were able to question them on the validity of their sources, and push them repeatedly on whether we should have any reason to be concerned.
