| Science sidelined in the government-PR-media frenzy | Alexander Holmes and Jonathan Mendel The Science: So What? campaign is a classic example of how bad science is ignored when agencies are only interested in audience impactUnder the previous government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) ran a campaign called Science: So What? So Everything (SSW). It was designed to encourage young people via websites, media reports and special events, to be inspired by the contributions of science to their lives.The SSW campaign was not without problems. The project included a website that was expensive and inefficient and got little traffic for a campaign of this type. And then there were serious concerns about the quality of some of the research that BIS was promoting. In particular, a report on future jobs in science by the Fast Future consultancy was heavily promoted during the campaign despite failing to meet some basic standards.Both the department and its SSW campaign have come under fire from researchers in public and in private. We were interested in how BIS responded internally to these criticisms, which sought to improve their activities. So we submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out.Good quality research depends upon robust, critical appraisal. As BIS is a major player in the UK's research work – and as the SSW campaign was intended to promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics – we hoped the department would reflect the standards that contribute to the UK's reputation for excellent research. We hoped, for example, that since the department plays a role in assessing the quality of research in UK universities the studies it commissioned itself would be robust. Our findings are not encouraging. They suggest BIS did not respond appropriately to concerns about the SSW campaign and that their way of measuring success was questionable.The report on future jobs in science was commissioned and promoted as part of the SSW campaign by BIS, under the former business secretary, Lord Mandelson . The report was garlanded with supportive statements from the former science minister, Lord Drayson, and even the former prime minister, Gordon Brown.As soon as the report was released, major concerns were raised by bloggers and academics about such things as the methodology, the inappropriate use of Wikipedia and implausible claims about nanotechnology. These serious issues were largely missed by the mainstream media, beyond a blog on the Guardian's science website and an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement that criticised the report.The Conservative party – then in opposition – failed to challenge the report effectively. It even issued a press release that added further errors. For example, it argued that a worldwide survey used for the report "determined that 'Virtual Lawyer' is the fantasy job which people in Africa, Peru and Pakistan think is 'likely to be the best paid'." But as the Fast Future report makes clear, this was based on responses from only one person in Peru and one in Pakistan. It would be rather tenuous to assume their compatriots share their views. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party's criticisms of such a flawed document were themselves so ill conceived. More worryingly, the press release went out with David Willetts's name in the headline along with a lengthy quote. Willetts is now minister for universities and science.When BIS evaluated the success of the future jobs report, it used media coverage as a gauge and all but dismissed any criticisms. Our FOIA request shows that the PR agency Kindred (which worked for BIS on the project) noted that the report achieved "178 pieces of coverage across national, regional, consumer and online media … A combined OTS [opportunities to see] of 60,985,597 … An AEV [Advertising Equivalent Value] of £2,248,866". This is a poor measure of success in science communication. Public understanding of and engagement with science cannot usefully be measured by column inches in the press, without also considering the accuracy and efficacy of the project in question.There were also crude attempts to assess the online impact of coverage of the Future Jobs report. Kindred said the story "generated a seven-fold increase in volume of traffic to the campaign website". The increase raised the traffic to "7,733 website hits during the six days after the launch of the activity (compared to 1,167 website hits for the same period before the activity launch)". For a campaign aimed at millions of young people and backed by a £1m-plus budget, this trumpeted increase is pathetic.In dealing with criticisms, BIS and Kindred focused on managing negative publicity rather than on correcting mistakes or meaningful engagement with critics. For example, when the nanotechnology blogger James Hayton criticised the Fast Future report, an email exchange supplied in response to our FOIA request argued that "James' blog isn't particularly well known … Not that this means his criticisms aren't well-founded, but I doubt appeasement will be a worthwhile strategy". The emails are so heavily redacted it is impossible to know whether the comment was from a civil servant or a BIS contractor. In deciding whether to respond to Hayton's blog, these email exchanges gave considerably more attention to whether Hayton's criticisms would appear on the Guardian's science blog and how to distance BIS from any criticism than was given to the accuracy and significance of his points: "Given the reach of the Guardian blog, we believe that it is a worthwhile exercise for Rohit [Talwar, the author of the Future Jobs report] to provide some form of response." The email exchange states that "while tacitly looking over Rohit's response, it needs to come from him (rather than Kindred, and certainly not BIS)".Responses to mainstream media criticism of BIS's practice were no better. In response to the Times Higher Education Supplement article, BIS emphasised the "speculative" nature of the research behind the future jobs report. It was left to Talwar to claim that the approach taken is "accepted best practice in horizon scanning". The importance of the THES article was downplayed, with one email exchange citing a single tweet stating that "Jonathan Mendel [quoted in the THES article criticising the future jobs report] is a prat" as evidence that there was little interest in the story. Substantive criticisms from the THES article and elsewhere were not addressed in the documents supplied to us.When preparing a statement on the response to the future jobs report for then science minister, Lord Drayson, a draft saying that the "vast majority" of coverage of the campaign was positive was revised with the effect of marginalising criticism further. The final version simply stated that the campaign "has generated a great deal of positive coverage". Failures by BIS to uphold basic standards raise concerns about how they engage with the professions within their remit and are frankly embarrassing for those of us who work within and are keen to promote the UK's excellent research sector.While BIS failed to redact Hayton's name from the documents released to us and left at least one other individual easily identifiable, they redacted so much from the email exchanges that it is not always clear which organisation is saying what. This is hardly in line with the government's claim that "transparency across all departments [is] a necessary and important part of making government more accountable". We appreciate it can be important to protect the identities of individuals, but there is a public interest in knowing whether particular statements were made by government departments or by contracted organisations.What stood out in the documents BIS released to us was how government, PR agencies and mainstream media worked as a closed and vicious circle. The government commissioned and promoted bad research; PR agencies promoted this to the media and the media overwhelmingly reported the government line. The project was then deemed a success because of the positive media coverage. Critical engagement with research and appropriate analysis of the tools, goals and achievements of research communication were marginalised. Given the damaging nature of such vicious circles, there is a danger that poor policies and practices will go unchallenged because critics are frozen out.We hope the new government will engage better with researchers. This means being open to a genuine dialogue and listening to constructive criticism. Before the election, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats emphasised the need for evidence-based policy, but we have yet to see convincing signs that this is happening. Promises of engagement and evidenced-based policy seem to have become less of a priority than ensuring that mantras of cuts, austerity and reform remain in the headlines.Alexander Holmes is a biologistJonathan Mendel is a lecturer in Human Geography at the University of DundeeScience policyPolitics and technologyLiberal-Conservative coalitionPeter MandelsonLabourFreedom of informationAlexander Holmesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Cat binner charged with animal cruelty A British woman who was caught on camera dumping a cat into a rubbish bin has been charged with causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. abc.net.au |
Solar Power Plants to Rise on U.S. Land The Obama administration wants to show its resolve to promote renewable energy despite Congress’s inaction. feeds.nytimes.com |
String theory and colour-field splash Using images and art to try and understand science can be helpful, misleading, flaky or fun. But it seems to be inescapable.So on a relaxing Saturday morning, where the fact that my daughter and I are recuperating from colds means I am excused swimming, I finally got around to watching this video I was sent some time ago by Mike Bernstein.I'm sceptical about string theory, and about art appropriating science buzzwords to give itself some intellectual frisson. But I like the imagery here (and the hat) and it set me thinking a bit about how I use pictures to help me understand physics.Various concepts wheeled in to discuss the recent CMS results are known as "colour glass condensate" and "quark-gluon plasma". (Personally it doesn't seem likely to me they have anything to do with it, but we shall see). Even the names "gluon" (the boson which carries the strong force) or "string theory" itself tell you that people are latching on to images from the everyday to help label and understand complex mathematical constructs.Pictures can be helpful, they can also mislead. I guess it is the mathematics and the data which nudge them along the right track, discarding false trails and reinforcing genuine insights. Anyway, thanks Mike for making me think, and I thought I would pass it on. And I do like the pictures too. More of them at the Saatchi online gallery.This isn't a queue to mail me zillions of sciency-arty links, but I would be very happy if you wanted to add some in the comments, as Mike did here.Jon Butterworthguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Women's lung cancer rate catching up with men's Research shows dramatic increase in women diagnosed with UK's biggest killer, as they fail to heed no-smoking messageWomen have been urged to take anti-smoking messages more seriously after new research showed lung cancer rates rising among the female population but declining among men.Lung cancer has traditionally been an overwhelmingly male disease, but growing numbers of women are being diagnosed with what is the UK's biggest cancer killer. The trend has alarmed senior doctors, who are urging female smokers to quit and calling on the NHS to do more to warn women of the dangers of taking up the habit.Alexander Ives and Dr Julia Verne, of the NHS's South West Public Health Observatory, used data from the UK Association of Cancer Registries to identify women in England diagnosed with the disease between 1985 and 2006. They found that: "Lung cancer incidence for females increased significantly from 1985-87 (32.3 per 100,000) to 2004-06 (35.4 per 100,000)", a 10% rise. Most recent figures give the rate for men in England as 60 per 100,000.There is great variation between regions. For example, it is expected that by 2030 lung cancer rates in the south-west will be similar among men and women. That is partly because in the last 20 years the disease has soared by 30% among females from poor backgrounds in the region but remained steady among better-off women."There's a problem here with women," said Dr Paul Beckett, chair of the British Thoracic Society's lung cancer and mesothelioma specialist advisory group. "Women need to take on board that lung cancer is not a disease of men, it's a disease of smokers, and either not take up smoking in the first place or quit cigarettes as a matter of urgency."Lung cancer claims more Britons' lives than any other form of the disease. Every day about 108 people are diagnosed with it, and of those 95 die. In the 1950s men diagnosed with lung cancer outnumbered women by six to one.Data released last week by the Office of National Statistics showed that while heart and circulatory problems claim more men than anything else, cancers are now the commonest cause of death in women, accounting for 159 deaths per 100,000 annually. The historic popularity of smoking in Scotland means it has the UK's highest rates of lung cancer, while cancer generally claims 181 lives per 100,000 women north of the border.Other research to be unveiled at the thoracic society's winter conference this week will show that there is still a postcode lottery deciding which patients receive radiation or chemotherapy treatment, or undergo surgery.Lung cancerCancerMedical researchHealthSmokingNHSDenis Campbellguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |