I was talking with a head teacher recently who had heard me on the radio discussing science on television. What made her prick up her ears was my remark: "...I would much rather listen to Harold Pinter talk about his work than anyone else." The point I was making was that the media allows writers, artists and musicians to interpret their own work, but seldom allows scientists to discuss the advances they have made. I assume that this is because those who control programming do not themselves understand science.

As discoveries in science, engineering and technology continue, the public falls further behind in its understanding of the field. The problem is that to truly understand science you have to be both creative and be at the cutting edge - this is the essence of research and also the essence of the scientist. Just as writers tend to have a deeper appreciation of books, so it is practising scientists who fully comprehend and value science.

So how is science presented on network TV? Because the remit of the main channels is to entertain rather than educate, science is usually packaged within a storyline (real or imagined) that is considered more important than the content itself. Horizon and Equinox adopt this formula. In such cases the programmes may be about science or about scientists but they are not really "science" programmes - the "science" is left out because it is deemed too difficult for the public.

Rightly or wrongly, scientists` perception is that TV tends to take easy options, such as focusing too often on documentary recordings of the natural world. The "science" slots overflow with wildlife - eagles swooping down on mice, tearing them to shreds and stuffing the bits down the throats of ravenous eaglets. But only a fraction of scientific culture is catered for by this endless diet of Kentucky Fried Gerbil programmes.

Other mainstream science programmes depict hyperactive presenters trying to interest kids in science. In a TV programme I recently saw in the US I watched in amazement as what appeared to be a couple of clowns tried to present science using a range of hysterical antics. If science really needs this approach to get kids interested we are in a bad way. What happens when a kid, turned on by this pantomime, has to learn calculus and solve a differential equation?

Just as a US president once asked, "Where`s the beef?" - so the scientific community has been asking for some time, "Where`s the science?" Apart from a few flittering exceptions, such as Jacob Bronowski`s, The Ascent of Man, Chris Sykes`s interviews on Horizon with the great scientist Richard Feynman and the recent BBC series Local Heroes, good science on TV is rare.

The BBC`s Tomorrow`s World is reasonable but it focuses on the uses of science rather than on communicating an understanding of the exquisite artistry with which the natural and physical worlds have been constructed and how they work. Most scientists complain that the only question they are ever asked by the media about their research is "What use is it?" And because the intellectual nature of science is invariably avoided by the media, it is no surprise that so many people are proud of their scientific ignorance. Writer Lucy Ellmann, for instance, even proclaimed the depth of her ignorance in a broadsheet last year. As Feynman remarked:"...to not know mathematics is a severe limitation in understanding the physical world." We should no more expect those without mathematics to understand the essence of science than we should expect someone who knows not English to understand the essence of Shakespeare.

The revolution in broadcasting, brought about by the proliferation of satellite and cable TV channels and the birth of the Internet, promises to democratise the broadcast media and expand the viewers` choice. We need no longer be force-fed by a media culturally paralysed by the remit only to maximise heads-in-front-of sets in order to gain advertising. It will soon be possible to cater for the intellectual aspirations of the public and help them evaluate with greater understanding the scientific issues likely to affect our everyday lives.

It is for this reason that the Vega Science Trust was created. The trust is working to use the new TV and Internet opportunities to enable scientists to communicate from a position of real understanding. The strategy is four-pronged. Our first task, which we have already accomplished, is to establish a track record in producing quality science programmes, featuring scientists who actually understand what they are talking about. In January 1999, with money form the Office of Science and Technology, we began to develop a recognised broadcasting presence on network television for serious science programmes. This will be followed by the creation of both a Science Channel (tvSet) and an Internet provider of Vega science programmes (InSet).

The most recent Vega initiative is the "Science Forum", featuring the view of experts who develop arguments at a level of scientific detail previously unseen on mainstream TV. We have recorded a pilot for BBC TV entitled GM Foods - Safe? With Colin Blakemore from the physiology department at Oxford, Mike Bevan, a geneticist at the John Innes Institute in Norwich, plant biochemist David Ho from Washington University, geneticist Steve Jones (University College London), Janet Radcliffe-Richards (philosopher of science at the Open University) and molecular geneticist Angela Ryan (OU). Disappointingly, the pilot did not convince BBC2 that such expert scientific debate was suitable for prime-time broadcast, but we are now finalising the recordings of science discussions with the OU for a new after-midnight Science Night slot. Our other scheduled programmes will include: Cellular Phones - Health Hazards; The Merits of Organic Foods and Women in Science. We see these as the forerunner to a dedicated science channel.

In educational terms, the traditional approach to broadcast debate, involving confrontation encouraged by media personalities with no particular scientific expertise, has failed. It is time for a new approach.

The Times Higher Education Supplement
September 17th 1999

Links To Other Information: