Sir John Maddox 1925 - 2009
From our Chairman:
You will all have read the many tributes that were paid to John Maddox, who died last month. Few scientists can have received more glowing obituaries. At Sense About Science we felt privileged to have had him as one of our founding trustees, who added distinction and direction to our activities from the start, when we most needed it. He was deeply committed to our aims, a regular presence at board meetings and generous with his time for advice and comment. In her early days as Director, Tracey Brown learned much from John about being tough and focused. Whenever she ventured that we couldn’t do a thing, he always asked “why not?” We will miss him very much.
Dick Taverne
Last updated: May 15 2009
Thank you for your support
Your name will be added to the list, but this may take a little time.
Click here to read the statement and here to see who else has signed it.
Last updated: June 22 2009
Sign up to help Keep the Libel Laws out of Science
Read the statement.
If you are signing this on behalf of your institution please email
Last updated: June 22 2009
OFT LAUNCHES FAKE WEBSITES TO WARN OF BOGUS WEIGHT LOSS AND ‘MIRACLE’ HEALTH CURE’
As part of its Scams Awareness Month, the OFT has launched two spoof websites to warn consumers of the dangers of ‘miracle’ health and weight loss scams that cost UK consumers an estimated £20m every year.
Employing similar techniques to those used by scammers, the OFT will be drawing consumers to the spoof - but initially convincing - miracle cure sites and then revealing that they are the victims of a potential scam. Internet banner advertising, sponsored links on search engine sites, and keyword techniques that push the sites higher up in online searches, will be used to drive consumers looking for health or slimming treatments to the fake websites.
The websites can be found at: www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/fatfoe and www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/glucobate
The first website, for ‘Fatfoe’ pads, claims that the product ‘sucks out excess fat and cellulite while you sleep’ so that you can enjoy your favorite foods and still lose up to twenty pounds of weight a week. The second website, for ‘Glucobate’, claims that the product is ‘the all-natural diabetes breakthrough’ that diabetics have been waiting for with ‘the healing aromatics of muskmelon’. But consumers who try to order from the websites are redirected to a page explaining that the products are fake, posted by the OFT to warn about the dangers of such scams.
The initiative is being supported by Sense About Science, an independent charitable trust which responds to misrepresentation about science, and leading diabetes charity Diabetes UK.
Every year an estimated 200,000 UK consumers waste money on ‘miracle’ cures for everything including baldness, obesity, impotence and old age. The OFT has previously taken action to stop a variety of misleading claims, ranging from a suction pad worn on the foot which claimed to suck out excess fat though a ‘trap door’ in the skin, a ‘negative calorie’ chocolate of which it was claimed ‘the more you eat the more you lose’, and a strip placed on the tongue that claimed to be ‘five times more powerful than any other impotency pill, spray or cure’.
The OFT advises consumers to be wary of miracle health products that:
Mike Haley, OFT Director of Consumer Protection, said:
“Miracle health scams target vulnerable people who are desperate to lose weight or find a cure. The products are often worthless and can even be dangerous with untested and potentially harmful ingredients. Always seek professional advice from your doctor or pharmacist before you part with your money.”
Diabetes UK Care Advisor Zoe Harrison said:
“Companies offering fake supplements often play on the most vulnerable members of society and in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest the ‘medication’ is safe for people with diabetes to take, let alone help them manage their condition.”
Alice Tuff, Development Officer at Sense About Science said:
“The internet is cluttered with adverts and chat-room conversations testifying to ‘incredible’ benefits from untested, sometimes bogus, cures and treatments. The emotional and financial costs of these for the people who get drawn in can be huge and it is vital that we keep promoting public vigilance in tackling this serious problem.”
NOTES
- OFT research shows that 78 per cent of victims of miracle health scams are women and 70 per cent are aged between 35 and 64. However, only one per cent of respondents ever report this type of scam to the authorities.
- The OFT has takhttp://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/89-08)en action to stop a range of misleading slimming and health claims - see press releases
(http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/169-07),
(http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/89-07),
(http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/82-07),
(http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/4-07).
(http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/101-06) - The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (’CPRs’ ) contain a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices and, in particular prohibitions against misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive commercial practices. False claims that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations are also banned. The Regulations are enforceable through the civil and criminal courts.
- Scams Awareness Month is part of an annual international initiative organised by the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network. The OFT has enlisted the support of Local Authority Trading Standards Services, Consumer Direct, and other consumer and industry bodies.
- Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust that responds to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter to society. It also works with scientists and civic groups to promote evidence and scientific reasoning in public discussion. For more details visit their website http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk
- The concept of Fatfoe and Glucobate have been adapted from a similar campaign by the US Federal Trade Commission and the Competition Bureau of Canada to warn about diet and health scams.
Coverage so far includes:
The Daily Telegraph online ”OFT: Chocolate does not help you lose weight”
The Daily Mail online ”Too good to be true: Warning over weight-loss chocolate and other ‘miracle’ cures”
The Daily Mirror online “At last, a miracle diet website from people we trust. Plus a great diabetes one.”
UK Medix Health news “OFT Launches Its Own Weight Loss Scams”
Web User.uk “OFT launches fake health websites”
24dash.com “OFT launches fake websites to warn of bogus health cures”
Last updated: March 11 2009
Standing up for Science 2 - the nuts and bolts
Standing up for Science 2-the nuts and bolts is a guide for early career scientists, engineers. medics and others who want to promote good science and fight misinformation. It contains examples of different ways how to stand up for science in public - from hunting down the evidence behind product claims to correcting misinformation in all kinds of media - along with practical tips on how to do it.
The guide has been developed by a team of early career scientists who, after attending VoYS workshops and working on There Goes the Science Bit..., The Detox Dossier and other myth busting activities, wanted to share their experiences and advice.
The VoYS network want to inspire others to join them and get involved, but they also want to send the message that it doesn’t always have to be about big actions and no matter who you are, what your background is or how much experience you have, there are plenty of things that can be done that have an effect on public debates about science.
Standing up for Science 2 is available to download here. Hard copies can be requested via .
With thanks to all thank all the contributors and the following VoYS members: Harriet Ball, Rosemary Coates, Anne Corbett, Maria Cruz, Frances Downey, Elizabeth Gaskell , Johnny Kelsey, Jennifer Lardge, Ian Mabbett, Suzanne MacKenzie, Nicola Powles-Glover, Fiona Randell, Andrew Russell, Simon Shears, Tom Sheldon, Juliet Stevens, Frank Swain, Richard Van Noorden, Debbie Wake, Thomas Wells, Sarah Whitehead and Robin Wilkinson.
The Launch
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
The background
Since 2004, VoYS Standing up for Science media workshops have been responding to early career researchers’ concerns and fears about the media head on. These range from queries as to why not all science journalists have science backgrounds, to accusations of misrepresentation of science by the media.
Many of our participants wanted to go on and spread the word about getting involved in public debates about science to their friends and colleagues. In response to this Sense About Science created the VoYS network, which operates to support early career researchers wanting to make their voices’ heard in public debates about science. The VoYS network have their own forum and have produced the following publications:
- Standing up for Science, a guide to the media which provides insight into how the media reports science and gives practical tips on what to do if a journalist calls.
- There Goes Science Bit..., a hunt for the evidence behind pseudoscientific product claims
- The Detox Dossier, a hunt for the evidence behind detox claims made for products and diets, and their campaign to alert the public.
- No two companies seem to use the same definition of ‘detox’.
- Little, and in most cases no, evidence was offered to back up the detox claims.
- In the majority of cases, producers and retailers contacted by the young scientists were forced to admit that they are renaming mundane things, like cleaning or brushing, as ‘detox’.
- They range in price from £1-2 for a detox drink to £36.95 for detox bath accessories.
24February 2009
Tackling miracle-cure web scams
Sense About Science welcomes the OFT’s new website initiative on miracle cures.
Read more20 February 2009
Manchester VoYS Standing up for Science Media workshop
Our next workshop is being held in Manchester on Friday 27th March. Application by CV and covering letter by Friday 13th March.
Read more9 February 2009
Making Sense of GM
Sense About Science has published a public quide on what is the genetic modification of plants and why are scientists doing it?
Read more5 February 2009
Standing up for Science 2 - the nuts and bolts
VoYS have launched their latest publication to help other early career scientists, engineers, medics and others who want to promote good science and fight misinformation.
Read more2 February 2009
Publish or be damned: peer review, the public and you
What does peer review do for science? Is maverick science rejected? Does peer review matter to the public?
Workshop for early career researchers, AAAS Annual Meeting, Chicago, Sunday 15th February.
Read more16 January 2009
Nuclear Fusion
Click the Nuclear Information Library for an updated statement on the search for new energy sources
Read more5 January 2009
Detox Dossier
‘Detox’ has no meaning outside of the clinical treatment for drug addiction or poisoning. Today young scientists and engineers are publishing a dossier on their hunt for the evidence behind detox claims made for products and diets, and beginning a campaign to alert the public.
Read more27 December 2008
Science & Celebrities 2008
People in the public eye are often drawn to promoting theories, therapies and campaigns that make no scientific sense. Two years on we review progress: are celebrities checking their science ‘facts’?
Read more24 December 2008
‘Research, publishing it, reviewing it and talking publicly about it’ Workshop 2009
We are continuing to pilot our new workshops on Research, publishing it, reviewing it and talking publicly about it for early career scientists and engineers. The next one is on Friday 23 January, 2009(Find out more).Application is with CV and covering letter by Thursday 15 January. To find out more information or apply please contact .
Read more17 December 2008
MRI and EU regulations
Read an update on MRI and EU regulations.
Read more11 December 2008
Christmas Reading Room 2008 is now open!
Sense About Science’s famous Christmas Reading room is now open! We’ve collected reading recommendations from some of Sense About Science’s Trustees, Advisory Council, Staff and friends and if you buy your Christmas gifts from Amazon using the Sense About Science link, part of the proceeds go to Sense About Science.
Read more18 November 2008
Job Opportunity: Public Liaison
We have a vacancy for the role of Public Liaison. Application deadline is the 24th November.
Read more10 November 2008
I’ve got nothing to lose by trying it - A guide to weighing up claims about cures and treatments
Published today, it explains how to tell the beneficial from the bogus in the face of the miracle cure stories, new wonder-drugs and breakthrough therapies that are increasingly promoted.
Read more25 October 2008
Evidence-Based Medicine Matters
”Only since the advent of scientific medicine has life expectancy leapt forward...“
Read comments from over a hundred different people on why evidence-based medicine matters to them. To mark forty years since the Medicines Act (1968) doctors, scientists, nurses, patients, professional societies, journal editors, patient groups and other members of the public are providing compelling stories about why evidence-based medicine mattered then and matters now.
Read more10 October 2008
The Peer Review Education Resource for Key Stage 4 teachers is now live!
Sense About Science has launched an online education resource that provides insights into what scientific knowledge is, how it is acquired and the questions to ask of scientific information in the public domain.
Read more6 October 2008
Making Sense of Radiation - A guide to radiation and its health effects
Scientists, engineers and medical professionals have come together to counter public misinformation about radiation and health effects. They say that the public discussion is confusing, with people left struggling to weigh up which claims to take seriously. Many people have become anxious about exposure to non-ionising forms of radiation, from mobiles, Wi-Fi and masts. The scientists also fear that people are now being encouraged to spend their money on all manner of unnecessary products that claim to protect from EMFs.
Read more3 October 2008
Job Opportunity: Communications Officer - full time
We have a vacancy for a Communications Officer. Application deadline is 17th October.
Read more2 September 2008
Should pregnant women avoid perfumes?
Professor Richard Sharpe puts the record straight on recent media reports of his research.
Read more11 July 2008
Are mercury fillings dangerous?
The Daily Mail published a story titled “ ‘Hidden danger’ of mercury leaking from dental fillings”. Professor Aubrey Sheiham, Professor of Dental Public Health from the Department of Epidemiology at UCL, replies.
Read more2 July 2008
Comment on new Consumer Protection Regulations
Frank Swain and Leonor Sierra argue that the new Consumer Protection Regulations could devalue the true meaning of ‘scientifically-proven’
Read more10 June 2008
Chlorinated water and birth defects
Recent articles in the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail claimed that new research suggested “drinking tap water while pregnant may double the risk of serious heart or brain defects in the unborn child”.
Read more29 May 2008
MRI and Safety
Radiologists respond to misleading comments about the effects of MRI scanner.
Read more28 April 2008
Does mother’s diet affect a baby’s sex?
A recent study suggested that a mother’s energy intake around conception can exert an influence on the sex of the baby. How such an effect is exerted is unknown, but the chances are that diet influences which sperm fertilises the egg rather than affecting survival/implantation of the fertilised egg.
Read more3 April 2008
Brain Gym
Sense About Science has been receiving calls from parents and teachers who are concerned about the use of ‘Brain Gym’ - a programme of teacher-led physical exercises claimed to improve cognitive abilities - in primary schools.
Read more11 March 2008
Making Sense of Testing
Health tests can do more harm than good for the ‘worried-well’...
Read more10 March 2008
Lecture 2008
“What is Science and Why Should We Care?”, by Professor Alan Sokal, was held on Wednesday 28th Feb at University College London.
Read more27 February 2008
Alan Sokal Podcast
In a podcast released today, Alok Jha interviews Alan Sokal. You can tune in via the Guardian website.
Read more25 February 2008
Manchester Standing up for Science Media Workshop Friday 18th April
We are holding our next VoYS Standing up for Science Workshop on Friday 18th April at Manchester University. Applicants need to apply with a covering letter and CV and the deadline for applications is Friday 28th March. Please click here for more details
Read more21 February 2008
Alice discovers her inner elf
Thanks to your donations, Alice was able to discover her inner elf, as she was coerced into dressing up as one of Santa’s little helpers for our end-of-year funding drive. Alice entertained small children and amused tourists as she posed for pictures in Piccadilly Circus…
Read more3 January 2008
Celebrities and Science 2007
People in the public eye are often drawn to promoting theories, therapies and campaigns that make no scientific sense. One year on we review progress: are celebrities checking their science ‘facts’?
Read more- How did you first come into contact with the media? Did you have any experience when you were a PhD student?
- After you were listed as one of the experts on the Imperial website, did your number of media hits increase?
- Have you ever been directly quoted in an article?
- Are you asked to speculate a lot with nanotech?
- Do you mind people asking you to speculate like that or do you get a bit exasperated with people phoning you?
- What advice would you give to young scientists if they are asked to speculate?
- What do you wish you had had known?
If you are interested in joining the VoYS network please contact .
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following organizations for help with its production and dissemination:
Last updated: February 04 2009
The Detox Dossier
‘Detox’ has no meaning outside of the clinical treatment for drug addiction or poisoning. Today young scientists and engineers are publishing a dossier on their hunt for the evidence behind detox claims made for products and diets, and beginning a campaign to alert the public. They found:
The dossier shows that, while companies and individuals now use the claim ‘detox’ to promote everything from foot patches to hair straighteners, they are unable to provide reliable evidence or consistent explanations of what the ‘detox’ process is supposed to be.
The investigation has been conducted by the Voice of Young Science (VoYS) network of over 300 early career researchers. It follows the publication of “There Goes The Science Bit...” with the charity Sense About Science a year ago, when a group of young scientists exposed dodgy science claims by making phone calls to product manufacturers. After widespread publicity for the publication, they received many subsequent examples, where the word ‘detox’ came up repeatedly, and offers of help. This led to a rapidly growing network of evidence hunters and this new investigation.
Today, as the dossier is published, many of the scientists involved - including physiologists, biochemists, doctors and pharmacists - will be launching their own ‘detox’ leaflet, Debunking Detox, to the public outside high street retailers in central London. The leaflet promotes the liver and kidneys as a fantastic ‘detox’ system and explains why there is no need to spend money on expensive products and treatments.
Sense About Science is a small charity promoting evidence and good science for the public. We depend on donations, large and small, from people who support our work. You can donate, or find out more at www.senseaboutscience.org/donate
Last updated: January 05 2009
Celebrities and Science Review 2008
It’s that time of the year when Sense About Science asks scientists to review what celebrities have said about science and medicine, from detox and special diets to chemicals, MMR and radiation.
Scientists have responded to celebrities including: Kelly Osbourne on avoiding cancer risks, Tom Cruise on psychiatry, Demi Moore’s promotion of detoxing with leeches, Ivanka Trump and ‘spit’ parties, Amanda Peet defending MMR, Mariah Carey’s use of Einstein’s equation, Jenny McCarthy misunderstanding MMR, Nigella Lawson on special diets, Delia Smith on sugar addiction, Carole Caplin on food supplements and more! Scientists also couldn’t resist a response to US presidential candidates on the subjects of the MMR vaccine and fruit fly research.
While UK celebs have improved and are taking more care when discussing science and medicine, their international counterparts haven’t done so well. Sense About Science’s files are still too full of examples of pseudo-scientific claims.
We’ve also discovered this year that the subjects have changed: the most common misconception of the last couple of years was how products or food can be ‘chemical free’, something which doesn’t appear this year. References to the effectiveness of detox have however remained steady. New topics appear too, including genetic testing, psychiatry, maths and international celebrities have resurrected inaccurate claims about the MMR vaccine. There have been big improvements amongst the UK celebs in medicine and health and nutrition and food production.
“We don’t expect people to know everything about science; the problem comes when they don’t consider checking it or asking a few questions before they speak out. With the internet, and 24-hour news media, celebrities’ misleading claims travel widely. They add disproportionately to the stock of misinformation that we all then have to wade through to make sense of a subject. A little checking goes a long way.” Ellen Raphael, director UK, Sense About Science
See below for some of the media coverage
The Times Don’t take health tips from celebs if you know what’s good for you
The Independent Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati
NME Mariah Carey told off by Scientists for E=MC^2 claims
The Financial Times Atlantic Divide Opens on Celebrity Science
The Guardian Mariah Carey Officially Rubbish at Maths
bbc.co.uk Stars ‘Misleading’ About Science
Channel 4 News Warning Over Celebs’ Health Advice
The Telegraph Celebrities Attacked by Science Charity for ‘Offering Bad Science Tips’
Sense About Science depends on donations, large and small, from people who support our work. You can donate, or find out more at www.senseaboutscience.org/donate
Last updated: January 20 2009
News archive
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
2007
Under Construction
Last updated: March 27 2009
Standing up for Science workshop for physical sciences and engineering
October 2007
Organised by Sense About Science, in association with Elsevier, the Society for General Microbiology, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Research Councils UK.
This event is open to early career researchers working in the physical sciences and engineering (post-doctoral fellows or equivalent in first job, and post-graduate students) and will be held on Friday 19th October 2007 in central London.
Are you passionate about your research? Do you think it is important for the good science and evidence to be communicated to a wider audience? What can you do about misconceptions and misinformation about science?
Sessions:
Science in the media: What happens when research announcements go wrong; statistics are manipulated; risk factors are distorted; or the discussions become polarised?
Speakers: Dr Mark Miodownik, Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at King’s College London, Dr Steve Keevil, Consultant Physicist in MRI, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Dr Sarah Bridle, Lecturer and Royal Society Research Fellow in the Cosmology subgroup of the Astrophysics Group at University College London
What journalists are looking for: How do journalists approach stories? Balance the need for news and entertainment with reporting science? And deal with accusations of polarising debates and misrepresenting the facts?
Speakers include Alok Jha (The Guardian), Anjana Ahuja (The Times) and Tom Fielden (BBC Radio 4), plus others to be confirmed!
Standing up for science; the nuts and bolts: What is there for early career researchers to play for?
Not yet the leaders in the field, what can you do to encourage good science and evidence in the public domain? This session offers practical guidance for early career researchers to get their voices heard in debates about science; how to respond to bad science when you see it; and top tips for if you come face-to-face with a journalist!
Speakers: Ellen Raphael, Sense About Science, Alice Tuff, VoYS co-ordinator, Sense About Science, Tom Sheldon, VoYS network member, Nancy Mendoza, Science Media Centre
These workshops are very popular and there are only 35 places available. Please apply with a CV and covering letter explaining your reason for applying to Alice Tuff: email or by post to Sense About Science, 25 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D7EG.
The closing date for applications is Friday 5th October 2007
Comments about previous workshops:
“An excellent workshop that has made a big difference to the way I view science in the media”
“This workshop is needed by all science researchers in order to develop an informed attitude towards the media rather than the pessimistic attitude many scientists adopt”
“Brilliant day. Good for young scientists to meet each other and communicate together”
Last updated: October 01 2007
Threat to good science in policy making
The Government has proposed plans to dissolve the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee next week - the final week of this parliamentary session. This would see the end of the Committee’s crucial role in scrutinising the Government’s use of science in policy making across all departments.
The proposal follows the move of the Office of Science and Innovation to the newly formed Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the creation of a replacement select committee focusing on the university agenda. This will not have the same cross-cutting role nor concern with the role and calibre of science in policymaking. The Science and Technology committee’s recent work has excelled in dealing with cross-cutting science issues from EU plans to restrict the use of MRI scanning in hospitals to nanotechnology. A possible Science and Technology sub-committee would not be able to deliver this level of scrutiny.
Since Sense About Science publicised this proposal last week, many scientists and institutions have written in protest to the Government (for example see links below). We hope that the Government will listen to these protests and recognise that increased parliamentary scrutiny of science in policy making has been a progressive, if sometimes uncomfortable, development. Without it, calls for transparency and accountability in science and policy making can have little meaning. It will also become increasingly difficult for the scientific community to provide input into the scrutiny of policy. If this happens, Sense About Science is interested in how that might be redressed. We are following developments closely and will endeavour to post more news as it becomes available.
In the meantime, please contact Eric de Silva at .
Letter to The Guardian, July 20th
Editorial and article in Nature, July 19th (subscription necessary to gain access)
Letter to The Times, July 13th
UPDATE
As of the end of this parliamentary session the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has been dissolved and a new Innovation, Universities and Skills (IUS) Committee created. The IUS Committee will decide at the start of the new parliamentary session in November whether or not to form a Science and Technology Subcommittee to deal with science policy issues.
Last updated: July 30 2007
Sodium benzoate
In 2006 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) published the results of a survey measuring the levels of benzene in 150 soft drinks on sale in the UK. This was in response to allegedly dangerous levels of carcinogenic benzene in soft drinks as a result of sodium benzoate interacting with ascorbic acid (vitamin C). In more than two thirds of the samples tested the levels of benzene were undetectable, while 38 samples had levels between 1 and 10 ppb (parts per billion). The guideline level set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). 1 ppb is 1 part per billion, i.e. 1/1,000,000,000, which is equivalent to 1 microgram per kilogram (1ug/kg).
In May 2007 The Independent ran a story that sodium benzoate, a common preservative in soft drinks, damages the mitochondria in cells. Sodium benzoate (E211) is used in carbonated drinks to prevent mould growth. The article was headlined “Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health”.
You can read The Independent article here
Here, Professor Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology responds:
Sodium benzoate is found naturally in cranberries, prunes, greengages, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. Its concentration when used as a preservative is limited by the FDA in the U.S. to 0.1% by weight in drinks but it is interesting to note that organically-grown cranberries and prunes can contain levels exceeding this limit. The International Programme on Chemical Safety found no adverse effects in humans at doses of 647-825 mg/kg of body weight per day so the safety margin is vast.
Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment and is found in “mid-Pacific-ocean air” at around 10ppt, in “background air” at around 2-10 ppb (USA data) and in the interior of a car will reach around 10-20ppb. When you fill the car with petrol the air will contain around 0.1-1ppm. Around 500ug of benzene is produced from an “average” cigarette and smokers have benzene in their breath.
Here, Professor Andrew Cockburn, Toxicologist, responds:
The approved food additives ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and sodium benzoate can react to produce low levels of benzene when they are present in the same beverage. Exposure to low levels of benzene in industry over an extended period has been linked to the development of aplastic anaemia, which can lead to leukaemia.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has set the acceptable level of benzene in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In early 2006, tests performed on beverages in the USA found levels 2-5 times above this, sparking international concern. In response to this FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) conducted a survey on the status of Australian beverages and benzene levels.
Focusing on beverages that were more likely to contain benzene, such as soft drinks and fruit juice, FSANZ sampled 68 beverages sold in retail outlets from March to April 2006. Independent analysis showed that 56 percent of beverages contained trace levels of benzene, ranging from 1 to 40 ppb. Over 90 percent of the 68 beverages screened were below the WHO guideline of 10 ppb.
Typically you would have to drink 10 bottles in a day to exceed the WHO drinking water upper limit.
Benzene is also present in petrol vapours, car exhaust fumes and cigarette smoke; the main way the general population is exposed to it is through environmental exposure. The UK Food Standards Agency has stated that people would need to drink more than 20 litres of a drink containing benzene as an impurity to get the same level of exposure as from the environment.
Last updated: July 03 2007
Wi-Fi networks
There have been a number of recent newspaper articles and a BBC Panorama documentary about the alleged harm of radiation from Wi-Fi, or wireless communication networks, on health. The Daily Telegraph reported in April the potential dangers to children from placing computers on their laps, while an article in The Independent in June described how a “naturopath” diagnosed her patient as suffering from “overexposure to Wi-Fi and mobile phone frequencies”. The recent Panorama investigation claimed that radiation from a Wi-Fi unit in a school was three times that of a mobile phone mast 100m away, and that precautions should be taken with children who maybe more sensitive to radiation from Wi-Fi units.
You can read The Independent article here, The Daily Telegraph article here and details about the BBC Panorama programme article here.
Professor David Coggon, Environmental Epidemiologist responds:
The radio waves used in Wi-Fi are similar to those produced by mobile phones, but have a slightly different frequency (analogous to the difference between medium and long wave radio transmissions). They also differ in their exact signal characteristics. The limited evidence that has been published to date indicates that levels of exposure from use of a laptop with Wi-Fi are generally much lower than those from using a mobile phone, and that those simply from being in an area where Wi-Fi is used are even lower. However, it would be helpful to have more research on this.
There has now been a lot of research on possible health risks from mobile phones, as well as from other sources of radio waves such as television transmitters. The balance of evidence does not point to adverse effects, either in the short or the longer term. This makes it less likely that Wi-Fi poses a health hazard.
Nobody can ever guarantee that anything in life is completely safe, and inevitably there are scientific uncertainties. For example, one could speculate that there might be a hazard peculiar to the exact frequency band or signal characteristics of Wi-Fi. However, from our current understanding of the biophysics of radio waves, this seems extremely unlikely.
On electrosmog, Professor Anthony Davies, Electronic Engineer, responds:
‘Smog’ is derived from ‘Smoky fog’ and refers to a kind of polluted fog which can be actually and provably harmful, and was a real and serious problem in cities such as London in the 1950s. Using the word ‘Smog’ in the context of electromagnetic radiation is a clear attempt to bias the listener by associating almost-certainly harmless radiation with recollections of the harm caused by polluted fog in the past. If Wi-Fi signals are to be called ‘electromagnetic smog’, then for consistency, the term ‘daylight smog’ should be used to describe ordinary sunlight.
more information describing Wi-Fi:
Description of wireless communication from the Health Protection Agency
Wi-fi? Why worry? article from Bill Thompson at the BBC
Last updated: July 24 2007
May 2007 Speaker Biographies
Voice of Young Science Workshop - About the speakers
Friday 18th May, 2007
Session 1
Azra Ghani
Azra Ghani is a Reader in Infectious Disease Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the London School of Hygiene Tropical Medicine. After a first degree in mathematics, an MSc in Operational Research and a Phd in epidemiology, she moved to Oxford to work on mathematical models for the BSE and vCJD epidemics. Subsequently she held Wellcome and Royal Society Fellowships first at Oxford and subsequently Imperial College before moving to her current position in 2005. Her research focuses on the analysis of infectious diseases including BSE/vCJD, SARS and currently Avian Influenza. Through this work she has had considerable experience in presenting results of her work to the UK and international media.
Steven Keevil
Stephen Keevil is a medical physicist with nearly 20 years experience in medical applications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). He is currently Consultant Physicist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals and Honorary Senior Lecturer at King’s College London. Among other professional activities, he is Chair of the Science, Engineering and Technology Committee of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) and a member of the Institute’s Council. In 2003 he became involved in the MRI community’s campaign about the impact of the Physical Agents (EMF) Directive on MRI, and he has worked closely with Sense About Science on this issue.
Stephen Minger
Stephen Minger is the Director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory and a Senior Lecturer at the Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases at King’s College London. In 2002, together with Dr Susan Pickering and Professor Peter Braude, Dr Minger was awarded one of the first two licenses granted by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for the derivation of human embryonic stem (ES) cells. His group subsequently generated the first human ES cell line in the UK and was one of the first groups to deposit this into the UK Stem Cell Bank. They have gone on to generate five new human ES cell lines, including one that encodes the most common genetic mutation resulting in Cystic Fibrosis and another one that contains the Huntington’s disease mutation.
Session 2
Anjana Ahuja
Anjana Ahuja is a feature writer and science columnist for The Times. She sits on advisory committees for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the British Council, and the Economic and Social Research Council. Anjana appears regularly on radio, and is often invited to chair debates related to the public understanding of science. She holds a PhD in space physics from Imperial College.
Rachael Buchanan
Rachael Buchanan is the Medical Producer for BBC News & is part of the team of health & science specialists. She works primarily with Medical Correspondent Fergus Walsh, making television news pieces about medical science & ethics for the BBC 1 Six & Ten O’Clock news bulletins. Rachael has worked as a television news journalist since 1997. Prior to her current position she was BBC News’ Senior Science Producer - covering the whole range of scientific issues - from climate change and foot & mouth disease to black holes and life on Mars.
Alok Jha
Alok Jha arrived at Imperial College in 1994 determined to become a particle physicist. A year of indescribably complex mathematics later, he shelved his plans to become the next Richard Feynman and began to concentrate instead on the music reviews for the college newspaper. Physics degree complete, he moved wholeheartedly into news reporting for Research Fortnight, a small science policy newsletter. In 2003 he joined The Guardian as a science correspondent, part of the launch team for Life, then the weekly science section. He now mainly writes news, features and comment on everything from botany to space physics for the daily science page in the new and improved Guardian, while contributing regularly to the other sections of the paper.
Fiona Macrae
Fiona MacRae is science reporter at the Daily Mail. She studied medical microbiology at Edinburgh University before training in journalism in Cardiff. After spending three & a half years covering general news at the News & Star in Carlisle, she moved to London, where she joined the Daily Mail. There, she continued to cover general news, while also gaining newsdesk experience. Since starting to cover science 18 months ago, she has led the Mail’s coverage of bird flu. She also regularly covers health, the environment, food technology & social sciences.
Session 3
Claire Bithell
Claire Bithell has a degree in Cell Biology and a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Manchester. Her PhD focussed on using different types of microscopy to study the movements inside frog eggs. She won the Daily Telegraph’s young science writer award in 2003, and this convinced her to leave bench science and begin a career in science communication. After getting some work experience with Cancer Research UK, Manchester Museum and writing for academic magazines, Claire began work at the Science Media Centre in 2004 as Science Information Officer. She was promoted to Senior Press Officer in December 2005.
Frances Downey (chair)
Frances is volunteer coordinator of the VoYS network. She is currently doing a PhD at King’s College London developing a breast cancer diagnostic tool using Raman scattering. Previous to this she worked at Sense About Science as a Programme Researcher. This involved working on the Peer Review and Voice of Young Science projects. She also oversaw Sense About Science’s first publication developed specifically for early career scientists, Standing up for Science. She has a physics BSc from King’s College London and an EPSRC-funded MRes in imaging and X-Ray imaging.
Adrian Mulligan
Adrian Mulligan has a range of experience having worked in publishing for 10 years. During the last 6 years his position in research has given him a unique opportunity to study the scholarly community. He has conducted research into author motivations and behaviour, peer review and most recently completed a study examining the core trends in scholarly publishing. He has presented on these topics at various conferences including the 2006 STM conferences held in Budapest and Frankfurt. Adrian’s background is in archaeology with a B.A. degree and MSc from Leicester University, and he also has professional qualifications from the Market Research Society.
Ellen Raphael
Ellen Raphael is Programme Manager at Sense About Science. She studied sociology at the University of Kent and has a master’s degree in Social Research. She is responsible for the design and implementation of Sense About Science projects, working with scientists to produce materials for the public on contentious subjects including chemicals, weather and radiation. As a non-scientist she enjoys grilling scientists to separate facts from fiction and is constantly surprised by what she discovers.
Last updated: June 26 2007
VoYS May 2007
Organised by Sense About Science, in association with the Biochemical Society, Elsevier, Institute of Biology, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, the Medical Research Council, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Society for Applied Microbiology and the Society for General Microbiology.
Voice of Young Science workshop (biological sciences and bioengineering)
18th May 2007
Sense About Science’s ninth VoYS media workshop was held at the Institute of Biology for early career researchers from biological sciences and bioengineering.
In the first session, Science in the Media, we heard from Professor Stephen Minger, Dr Azra Ghani, and Dr Steven Keevil (Find out more about the speakers...)
The panellists discussed their successes and the difficulties experienced when speaking to the media, from the lab coat stereotype to unfortunate quotes about Christopher Reed. There were many audience questions ranging from whether scientists enjoyed talking to the media, what level of personal responsibility scientists had to the public, the effects on their career from being in the media and how to deal with misrepresentation. The scientists concluded that despite the pitfalls that can be encountered, talking about science is worthwhile and scientists should get involved.
“This was a really good introduction and it was nice the panellists were positive about their experiences.”
“Insightful info about how scientists have dealt with the media - good that they talked about their mistakes as well as their successes.”
“Excellent session and speakers giving very frank and honest opinions about their media experiences”
Audience members on first session
Next came the journalists, Alok Jha, The Guardian, Rachael Buchanan, BBC News, Fiona MacRae, The Daily Mail and Anjana Ahuja, The Times. The session began with the delegates outlining how they felt the media could improve its reporting of science. The journalists defended their profession in a lively and vigorous debate, which gave a good insight into the world of science journalism. The audience asked how personally responsible journalists feel when reporting a story, particularly when it is controversial. This led to some very interesting comments and examples of how journalists try to be fair whilst taking the responsibility very seriously. The session helped the audience understand the difficulties of merging the world of scientists and the media.
“Very helpful to hear the journalists points of view to get a better understanding of their role and to see that they’re human too and have good motives for science reporting.”
“Good to understand what the media wants. At the end of the day the story has to be just that - a story and there has to be a public interest.”
“This was especially interesting as I had never met a science journalist before and it dispelled a lot of negative impressions.”
Audience members on second session
The final session saw the audience divided into three groups of ten for a more informal working session. Adrian Mulligan, Associate director of Academic Responsibilities at Elsevier talked to the groups about the different forms of peer review and gave advice on getting published and how to target research to the right journal. Ellen Raphael talked about Sense about Science, discussing projects and the ways we correct misinformation with examples from the last five years. Claire Bithell, from the Science Media Centre (SMC) gave her top tips on how to prepare for an interview and how the SMC works as a press office for science.
“Very engaging and useful talks.”
“Motivated me to practically tackle scientific awareness in the public.”
“Very interesting and diverse speakers”
Audience members on third session
All in all it was a very lively and informative day. Roll on the next one! To read audience reviews of the day please see links in the right hand menu. Here are some selected comments:
“Thanks for a fantastic day and a brilliant opportunity!”
“An excellent day - thank you for your effort and input!”
“A really worthwhile and informative day!”
The next workshop, for early career researchers in the physical sciences and engineering, is taking place on Friday 14th September. For further details or to apply for a place please contact
Last updated: August 17 2007
Privacy Policy
An individual’s personal information, including name, address and telephone number, will not be sold, rented or otherwise transferred to a third party without that individual’s explicit consent. Personal data will be processed fairly and lawfully; processed for limited purposes and not in any manner incompatible with those purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive; accurate; not kept longer than is necessary; processed in line with data subjects’ rights; secure and not transferred to countries that do not protect personal data adequately.
The Policy guides how we collect, store and use information about you and will be periodically assessed against new technologies, business practices and your changing needs.
Sense About Science may, from time to time, modify the Policy to reflect legal, technological and other developments. In that event the changes will appear at this location. We recommend you regularly check of the Policy in order to remain aware of the contents of the latest version.
Subjects can request that all data relating to them be removed. We cannot guarantee that every list containing information about the data subject can be identified. Removing a name from all lists does not guarantee that the individual will not be contacted again, if, for example, a new mailing list contains the deleted name. The only solution to this problem is to maintain an exclusion list that contact lists can be vetted against when used. In order that having an exclusion list does not contravene the Act we will ask permission from the individual to hold their name on an exclusion list.
Sense About Science will regularly update you with details which may be of interest to you. If you do not wish to receive such updates you may contact us. On request you may also request details of all data Sense About Science has compiled about you. Requests for a copy of subjects information will be responded to within 40 calendar days with a maximum charge of £10 to process the request. The 40-day period starts when the fee and information to verify the identity of the person have been received.
Last updated: June 19 2007
Portraying science to the wider public
Nicole Kane is an MRC-funded postdoc at the Centre for Reproductive Biology, Edinburgh
Like other members of the public, I enjoy keeping abreast of current issues in the media. However, face me with the scenario that my research could be subjected to media scrutiny and I would run a mile.
Why?
Scientists are acutely aware of some recent heinous crimes within the media, for example, the still prevalent debacle of the MMR scandal. Personally, I have many opinions about science journalists and talking to the media: that journalists habitually misrepresent not only the scientist but scientific research; that by talking to the media I could affect my research funding—or just that I may sound completely stupid in the eyes of my colleagues!
Thankfully I attended a VoYS (Voice of Young Science) workshop called Standing Up for Science, where these ill-informed notions were crushed. The workshop, organised by Sense About Science and attended by other like-minded early postdoctoral and PhD students, was split into three sessions. Our first session was a very enthusiastic discussion with three highly distinguished scientists well acquainted with standing in the media spotlight: Dr Stephen Minger, a pioneer in Stem Cell research and the Director of the Stem Cell Biology lab; Dr Azra Ghani, a reader in infectious disease epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; and Dr Steven Keevil, a medical physicist with considerable experience in medical applications of magnetic resonance imaging. All three panellists shared their anecdotal experiences with the media, both good and bad. They stressed that overall their experiences had been very positive and encouraged us all to embrace media interactions.
During lunch we were asked to discuss how we thought the media could do it better. This exercise ensured that we were armed with several questions and suggestions for our next panellists - the journalists: Anjana Ahuja, a feature writer and science columnist for The Times; Rachael Buchanan, a medical producer for BBC News; Fiona MacRae, the science reporter at the Daily Mail and Alok Jha, science correspondent for the Guardian. We were given the opportunity to voice our concerns and grievances about science reporting. For me, this was the most informative session of the day. The journalists explained how a science story is assembled, and that their job involves finding and making accessible sellable stories and controversial debates – all within a very tight deadline.
The journalists’ responses to our concerns and our very enthusiastic discussion made us re-evaluate our opinions. When confronted by the delegates on misrepresentation the journalists were vociferous in their defence - they get the information for the stories from us, the scientists, whose responsibility is to be able to convey our research to any audience. So if we can’t ensure that the journalists have the story correct, who is really to blame for misrepresentation? This of course is not true for all situations, but highlights a fundamental problem in the relationship between science and the media. Science journalists do not set out to ruin or misrepresent the science, they are trying to highlight what they and others feel are important discoveries and tell their audience about them.
Our final session was concerned with the tools available to us for dealing with research in the public eye. First we were advised how best to get our research published in a peer-reviewed journal. We then discussed ways in which we could stand up for science through Sense About Science, a charitable trust founded to promote an evidence-based approach to science issues in the public domain and challenge bad science. Finally, we found out about the work of the Science Media Centre (SMC). The SMC is often the link between journalists in the national press and scientists. The SMC also provides support for scientists, should we be faced with media interest in our work, and can advise on the best course of action.
So, after the workshop I now feel that the onus is on ourselves to portray our science to the wider public. If we are unable to do this, how can we expect journalists who are not the experts to do the same? We all have a common aim - to promote good science. We have a responsibility, as do the media. As scientists we need to stop hiding behind those stereotypical lab coats and safety glasses, put down the armoury of our pipettes, embrace a relationship with journalists and use all the tools available to us to reach the members of society who, like myself, enjoy pouring over the latest stories.
Last updated: July 03 2007
Science in the media: damage control or public engagement?
Gemma Phillips is a PhD student at The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Spreading awareness and a sense of responsibility among young scientists is both key to changing the culture of mistrust of the media in the scientific community and is the fundamental ethos of the VoYS (Voice of Young Science) arm of Sense about Science. Equally important in the wider context of science communication is the work that Sense About Science do in reacting to continued misrepresentation of scientific information in the public domain, not just in the news media.
What is it that scientists are looking to get out of interaction with the media? Should we be relying on them to give all the relevant facts straight? Or should we be looking to find other ways to engage the public in science, where we can have interactive dialogue, perhaps to use the skills that journalists have to draw public attention but to sustain their interest through other means?
The scientists who spoke to us showed that media work can be fun, with potentially positive effects on your career progression and can in fact, at times, be used to promote issues that you feel are under-exposed in the public or political arena. However, it is difficult as an early-career scientist to feel that the work that you do could ever be of interest to the news media. This feeling was not really abated by the panel of journalists at the workshop. They described to us how they find science stories on a daily basis for the news, or over the longer term for feature articles and opinion articles. They also answered the concerns that the audience of young scientists raised about how their work and science generally is handled in the media.
Amongst these issues were a perceived lack of follow-up to breaking stories; balancing the representation of debates as well as getting the basic facts right; the input of editors and how headlines can misrepresent the underlying message of the research being reported. One journalist commented that they strive to be fair in their representation of a story, giving the consensus view rather than balancing the majority view with and extreme but uncommon view. This is good to hear, especially because it seems that this may not have always been the case. But at the end of the day these journalists are paid to interpret current affairs for the reader, to entertain and stimulate them, not to give them a science lesson.
It is clear to me now that scientists must become more willing and better equipped to communicate science to the media in order to ensure that good science underpins the stories in the news, and this is certainly happening. However, I think that the message that I took away from the workshop is that learning how to engage with the media and to help journalists report good science in their articles should not be the end goal for scientist who are just beginning to enter the arena of science communication. We must acknowledge that journalists are not there to act as a decoder for scientists and their work. These ideas are at the core of the rising field of science communication – but I have managed to make it into my PhD before really hearing about them and of opportunities for me get involved.
This sentiment is one that was also voiced by other young scientists at the BAAS Science Communication Conference in May. Initiatives like FameLab and Voice of Young Science show that the situation may be changing. But there is still a lot more opportunity to get young scientists to think about and act on ideas for engaging directly with members of the public of all ages, both to make scientific understanding a tool for everyday life and to enthuse young people at school age about science.
I arrived at the VoYS workshop with the opinion that science is often misrepresented in the media because journalists care more about sensational stories than about getting the facts straight. I left happily reassured that the large majority of journalists see misinformation as bad practice and pride themselves on communicating science stories accurately and engagingly to their readers. Equally I learnt that the responsibility for good reporting of scientific issues lies as much with scientists, who need to make themselves available to journalists at the crucial times and to be clear, concise and accurate in providing the facts, figures and opinions.
Last updated: June 27 2007
Dear Scientist, what is the price of milk?
Betina Ip is a PhD student at Oxford University Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics.
Stephen Minger’s mother has made a video clip of all his appearances on TV. The problem is they all show the same thing: a guy in a white lab coat pipetting. Minger, who has come a long way since his graduate years as a lab rat, is now the media savvy Director of Stem Cell research at King’s College, London. At the recent Sense about Science VoYS (Voice of Young Science) workshop he and a group of distinguished scientists and journalists jostled for a common ground on how science is represented in the media. Hottest concerns for a young audience of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers were whether science was professionally mangled by journalists and how to control for scientific accuracy. So, who are these guys in the white lab coats?
Strategic use of visual props such as white lab coats prepares the viewer for a clip on scientific content, explains Rachael Buchanan from BBC News. This fits well into the public preconception of a laboratory scientist and preps the viewer for upcoming information on science. Such stereotyping has the positive effect of immediate visual cueing, but at the same time promotes the image of a geek scientist, who doesn’t even know ‘how much the milk costs’. For journalists this is a superficial trade-off, which is acceptable, as long as the clip’s content is efficiently communicated. But luckily this is where the manipulation stops.
Contrary to what was feared by the audience, journalists defended their adherence to what is scientifically accurate. “Accuracy is as much their professional standard as the scientists”, says Alok Jha, Guardian science writer. Often, a cut-throat deadline prevents proofreading from scientists involved. However, if mistakes are done, “an honest apology” usually soothes all hurt feelings, suggests Anjana Ahuja feature writer from the Times. Journalists are as fallible as scientists, and the media is the best way to get the public’s attention. How has it been put to use?
The answer is, pretty much as it suits you. While Dr Steve Keevil of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital used targeted media attention to force the issue of magnetic resonance imaging onto the government’s agenda, publicity friendly Stephen Minger has been accused of “publishing his best research in the Times or Guardian”. But what does a scientist do when asked unwanted questions on live camera? “Just keep swearing- the material will be unusable” pitched Dr Azra Ghani, researcher at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. This is not to say that some scientists do not get a certain rush from being the centre of attention.
So, science and media, thumbs up or thumbs down? The current trend is going upwards for science and media in the UK. Organizations such as the Science Media centre cater towards journalists and scientists alike, and independent quality control from Sense about Science, an independent charity, encourage even celebrities to think twice about pseudoscientific statements. With these structures in place, we can feel content that the first steps towards good science reporting have been done and done well. And as a graduate student in the sciences I can say that price of a pint of milk is exactly 69 pence, and the price of good science reporting is becoming increasingly affordable.
Last updated: July 03 2007
VoYS NESTA Crucible 2006
9th July 2006
This was the second year that Sense About Science has run its VoYS media workshop as part of the NESTA Crucible LAB weekend.
First session: Science in the media. Dr Robin Lovell-Badge, Head of the Division of Developmental Genetics at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London, spoke about the pitfalls and rewards of speaking to the media with particular reference to animal testing and embryonic stem cell research.
Second session: What journalists are looking for. Alok Jha, science correspondent for The Guardian, and Vivienne Parry described what it was like to work for a national newspaper and the time pressures they are under to write stories. They included a break down of what a typical working day at a newspaper is like and also responded to the audiences concerns about the media.
Third session: Talking about unpublished and published research. Dr Claire Bithell from the Science Media Centre gave a rundown of ‘dos and don’ts’ when dealing with the media. Then Dr Joanne Baker, an editor at Science, gave the inside track on how papers are chosen by journal editors to be put forward to peer review, and how early career scientists can improve their papers’ chances of being published.
For more information about the Crucible LAB programme please visit the NESTA website.
Last updated: January 17 2007
VoYS November 2006
Organised by Sense About Science, in association with Elsevier, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Voice of Young Science workshop (physical sciences and engineering)
17th November 2006
Sense About Science’s seventh VoYS media workshop was held at the Institute of Physics and was for physical sciences and engineering early career researchers. Thirty-nine participants were selected with representatives from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All were keen to hear what our panellists had to say about science and the media and to bring their own experiences into the discussion.
In the first session, Science in the Media, we heard from Professor Jim Al-Khalili, who holds a chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey and is also a Professor of Physics, Dr Andrea Sella, lecturer in the Chemistry Department at University College London and Dr Mark Miodownik, lecturer in the Mechanical Engineering Department at King’s College London and head of the Materials Research Group; Dr Simon Singh chaired the session.
Next came the journalists - Mark Henderson, science editor for The Times, Rachael Buchanan, science producer for BBC News and James Randerson, science correspondent for The Guardian. The session started with the audience outlining their concerns about how the media operate. The journalists responded with a robust defence of their profession and gave insights into what it is like to work in a news room with its fast turn around and short deadlines. They also covered what early career researchers can do to help journalists produce better stories. The session helped the audience to understand the conditions journalists work under and how they could better work together.
In the final session, Talking about published and unpublished research, David Tempest, Associate Director of Research & Academic Relations at Elsevier gave practical advice on how to improve the chances of getting work published as well as highlighting the importance of peer review and how pre-publication was affecting media coverage of science papers. Lyndal Gully, Engineering Press Officer at the Science Media Centre then gave her top tips for dealing with the media.
Last updated: June 26 2007
Interview with Dr Milo Shaffer
Lecturer in nanomaterials chemistry at Imperial College, London and visiting lecturer on Cranfield’s MSc in nanotechnology programme (full biog)
How did you first come into contact with the media? Did you have any experience when you were a PhD student?
MS: I don’t think so, it all started later on really.
So how did that happen?
MS: I think I was contacted out of the blue more-or-less. Obviously working in nanotechnology, it is rather a hot topic at the moment. People cast around for the nearest convenient person who will answer questions that relate to something they are trying to write an article about, so different people approached me for comment about different things. Most of it was perhaps of a technical nature, to comment on some paper that had come out or some new discovery that had been reported so they want comment on the applications or the practicalities or just something to fill in the space in their article.
So was that before or after you were listed as one of the experts on the Imperial website?
MS: I think it was before, because I think I did a few when I was at Cambridge, I’m not quite sure how they got hold of me.
After you were listed, did your number of media hits increase?
MS: I don’t get very many, maybe one every month or two, something like that. Or maybe even less. I don’t think it has made a lot of difference. One thing I didn’t say was that you could ring me up before 8 in the morning so I don’t get the breaking news type things. Perhaps I should, perhaps it would be interesting. So it is more people preparing feature articles and things like that.
So have you ever been directly quoted in an article?
MS: Yes, several times although I can’t remember the specific quotes now. There was one about self-cleaning clothes. Somebody invented titanium-filled polymer filaments which has a self cleaning photo catalytic process so it removes dirt from itself, and so there was the old man in the white suit type story, which makes a nice story. And of course there is a similar sort of argument which says that if it eats dirt it may also eat the suit itself. So they just wanted some comment to go with that about whether it was practical to have this cleaning process. I can’t remember exactly what I said but it was probably something along the lines of “yes, photocalysis on titanium does work”.
So you’re asked to speculate a lot with nanotech aren’t you?
MS: Yes, or at least what usually happens is that people ring up and speculate wildly and then I have to be rather sensible and down to earth. I had one recently where somebody rang me and said “Ha! Well I’ve just read this paper and I conclude that I can make a suspension bridge that is entirely transparent and see-through, and can you comment about this”, and I replied, “Well, how did you get to that idea?” and eventually it came to pointing out that essentially he was trying to make something that was inherently black, so it wasn’t going to work. Then he was a bit depressed. I guess that’s quite a common thing when some of the stories are done; to be a bit more down to earth about the realities of whatever the topic is in hand.
The trouble is that it doesn’t always go down terribly well, or at least it’s not what the other person wants to hear because they would like to make a more exciting story. So it makes a less exciting story. I mean the response I’ve had mostly, because I’ve spoken to science writers, has been oh well fair enough, “It’s a fair cop, gov”. I don’t know if there are other types of situations where you get them quoting something random and saying that you are responsible. That might happen I suppose but I’ve never had that.
So do you mind people asking you to speculate like that or do you get a bit exasperated with people phoning you?
MS: No, it’s usually quite entertaining. What crazy idea have they come up with this time? And sometimes you go “Ohh, well actually, maybe we should do that, that’s an interesting idea.” I mean it’s quite fun speculating, thinking on your feet. Again you want to be fairly confident that you’re talking to someone who is sympathetic, because if you are just thinking on your feet it is easy to say something which is actually ridiculous really, so you want to be able to have a chance to review what your conclusions of that discussion are. I guess you tend to feel freer to do that with someone you have spoken to before, and so you know that they are trustworthy. You know that when they say “oh we’ll send you the quote before we publish it”, that they do indeed send you the quote.
I have quite often had people send me stuff before they put it out, and let me have a go at editing, which I know is not the normal format. Whether I just sound approachable, or convince them that I won’t insert enormous amounts of gobble-de-gook into their work, I’m not sure, but I usually get away with that. And when I do that, I am extremely careful not to change the length of the sentences that they have included or add any technical words. But what you find quite often is that what they have written is actually incorrect and by the smallest of tweaks you can make it correct.
Just thinking about young scientists who haven’t had that much exposure to the media, what advice would you give to them if they are asked to speculate?
MS: Well don’t if you’re not comfortable with it. Don’t say something which you might later regret. As I say, be careful of who it is you are speculating with and if you are not comfortable just stick to what you had decided you were going to talk about in advance. So go back to the things you are confident about and say “Well, I don’t know whether that would be practical, however this is an interesting thing you can do” and then talk about what you want to talk about.
What do you wish you had had known?
MS: I don’t know. I don’t feel like I have had any terrible experiences. It is hard to remember what you thought beforehand. As you go through it you get a better idea of what it is they are interested in and how the mechanics of it happen. I haven’t had very many really complicated situations so I can imagine that might have been slightly different if that had come up. I think that the main thing to bear in mind is just to know what you want to say in advance. If there is something you want to say, if they give you something to comment on you could get the research in advance and give yourself a moment to reflect on it and decide what is your view on it rather than doing it on the hop. You can also look a few things up as well if you need to.
back to contributors page
Last updated: October 05 2006
Interview with Dr Carly Stevens
Author of the paper ‘Impact of nitrogen on the species richness of grasslands’ published in Science in March 2000 (full biog)