Science needs a simpler voice

This article was published in the Canberra Times in April 2010

Sport, fashion, food and lifestyle – all get their very own section in the paper. Even celebrity gossip gets a guernsey. But science? They're just those dorks in the corner working on boring things such as understanding the origins of life, preserving ecological diversity and finding cures for life-threatening illnesses. Who wants to read about that?

Imagine we were to draw up a ledger of all the fields of human endeavour and the degree to which they have shaped our lives. Admittedly fashion gave us parachute pants and sport offered up Brendan Fevola, but surely science pips them at the post in terms of its fundamental influence on us and our understanding of the world.

While there is Robyn Williams on the radio and Catalyst on the telly, the printed media hardly overwhelms us with stories of a scientific bent. Yes, articles can sometimes be found scattered around the front section of the newspaper but compared to politics, crime, sport, human interest, arts, and just about anything else, the coverage is often fairly light on. Then, what we generally do read about is the 'whizz-bang' moments or those stories that seem to have a direct personal effect on our lives (such as the release of the iPad or other technological gadgetry). While, admittedly, we have seen an increase in stories about climate change and water scarcity over the last decade, other environmental issues generally remain untouched.

The Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor 2009 reported that Australians generally have a positive attitude to science and technology. On commenting about the annual survey, Professor Michael Gilding observed that, “when presented with complex scientific or technological issues, people often take a short cut and form an opinion based on the information source rather than the information itself.” Clearly it is therefore crucial that the commercial media increase the quantity, diversity and depth of their science coverage.

The danger of having a scientifically illiterate public has become most apparent in the last year or so with certain high-profile, climate change denying columnists peddling anti-scientific messages. These columnists have no training or expertise in the field, no understanding of scientific methodology and, frankly, no right to criticise the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community. And yet for many people such columns form their main source of (mis)information on scientific matters. Now I'm not denying that these columnists have a right to an opinion; I'm just denying that those opinions necessarily have a right to air time or column space, particularly at the expense of more qualified reportage.

Last month, Tim Flannery lamented that, “We've got a big problem with the gap between scientific information and a very confused public”. Without better communication between scientists and the public, he said, misinformation is allowed room to proliferate.

However, while we have no mainstream forum in which scientists can disseminate information and participate in scientific discussions, this remains a very hard thing to achieve. What we need is an avenue through which the average person on the street (me and probably you) can increase our scientific literacy. We need more in-depth and high-quality stories that translate scientific work into understandable and engaging narratives. And we require a medium for more open and informed debate on the issues raised.

It's not like there isn't a precedent for such a forum. The New York Times, The Times and The Guardian, for example, all contain dedicated science sections. And as the growing readership of popular science magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist indicates, the public is hungry for more science-based content.

But here in Australia, while we continue to deny it the place it rightfully deserves in the media, science will continue to live in the shadows and, sadly, the rest of us will remain in the dark.

How can we expect young people to become interested in pursuing science –professionally or personally – if their only exposure to it is a limited media coverage that portrays it as dull or unimportant? How can we expect the average layperson to cast a vote or even have an interesting discussion about some of the greatest issues that face us in life today without affording them a full and sophisticated coverage of science? I look forward to the day when I can say over my morning coffee, 'Pass the science section, dear'.