In science there is no place for a balance of opinions, part I - fair coverage or sticking to the truth?

This is according to a report that examined the science broadcasts on the BBC, prepared by Prof. Steve Jones from Imperial College in London at the request of the British Broadcasting Authority. The report examined reports on global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food

"Science plays an especially vital role in our lives. Scientific developments are capable of affecting us all significantly. Debates in areas ranging from climate change to advanced DNA technologies are in the public discourse. And questions of ethics, policy and funding involving science are accompanied by strong emotions when the consequences sometimes hit sensitive systemic issues. So it is essential that the BBC listeners enjoy high standards of science coverage. This is according to a report that examined the science broadcasts on the BBC, prepared by Prof. Steve Jones from Imperial College in London at the request of the British Broadcasting Authority. The report examined reports on global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food.

The committee devoted the year 2010 to examining the accuracy and lack of references of the scientific reports. To do this we helped Prof. Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London together with the Science Communication Group at Imperial College London.

The report reached several interesting conclusions: the best of which is that the content of the BBC in this area is of high quality and is spread over many departments of the authority. Prof. Jones says that the content is rare in its accuracy and clarity. However, the analysis of the content also revealed some shortcomings. Among them is the lack of communication between the producers of the scientific programs across the authority, reliance on a small number of sources, and the authors of the report expressed concern that the guidelines regarding "non-contacts" in the coverage of science are being applied too rigidly.

Program producers must differentiate between established facts and opinions in science coverage to ensure that this difference is also clear to listeners or viewers.

"The application of the guidelines regarding impartiality or neutrality in relation to the coverage of science fails in that it does not take into account what it calls the non-polemical nature of some of the science stories and the need to avoid giving attention to fringe opinions."

According to Prof. Jones, in the past too much time was given to the supporters of the theory that the triple vaccine is dangerous and recently claims were made regarding the safety of genetically engineered plants, as well as the very effect of man on the climate. He suggests that the demand for equality in the votes cast will not appear in the new version of the guidelines and instead a request to consider the weight of the opinion will appear. Also leaving no references while allowing for common sense may also help. he believes

"The attempt to give space to everyone, no matter how qualified they are to talk about the issue, and who claim to be interested may result in a wrong balance and release the public to marginal opinions and not to impartiality, but the opposite. Conflicts of interest and dishonesty exist in science and should be disclosed, but not at the cost of too literal an interpretation of the guidelines.

The BBC tried to find a solution to the problem but was unsuccessful. He must accept the fact that it is impossible to create a balance between facts and opinions. The concept is that impartiality in science should be handled flexibly. The main criterion of the new guidelines is that the BBC should achieve "balance relative to weight" in reporting on perspectives and opinions, and that minority opinions will not receive equal treatment. If it succeeds - we will wait and see.

Scientists - can they be trusted or are they dishonest?
Science includes disagreement, it cannot progress without it. The scientists may be biased and they also do not lack prejudices, overconfidence, self-delusion, lack of care, jealousy and personal loathing. However, most of them deceive themselves about the importance of their work, but they rarely tell lies to their colleagues or the public. It rarely means never. The scientists do not belong to the monastery (although there will be those who think they are indeed such a sect). Cheating exists, sometimes it is scandalous and shameful like the case of the American immunologist who claimed to be able to transfer a piece of skin from a black mouse to a mouse genetically engineered to be albino (he used a marker pen). Often such hoaxes are corrected because the results cannot be confirmed, but there is no doubt that some have found their way into the scientific literature.

More often than not, mediocre work is over-promoted because it promises that gene therapy is just around the corner (and it's still around the corner even though that hype pales in comparison to the exemplary promises of alternative medicine). An excessive ratio of such illusions comes mainly from the field of medicine where there is a natural clamor of researchers and patients for positive results.

The media plays an important role in revealing the truth about claims for drugs and medical or quasi-medical treatments.

There have also been cases of scientists serving their funders, for example the denial by researchers hired by the tobacco lobby to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Recently, claims have been made that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies tend to be more positive regarding a particular drug than studies whose funding came from independent sources.

Here, for example, it is important to emphasize the source of the research's funding, especially when it comes to information that has immediate medical or technological implications. It is important to remember that most of what the British scientists say about theoretical physics, evolution or marine biology is financed by the taxpayer and it is not certain that this should be mentioned in every news.

Jones brings the story of Brian Cox, who submitted the series "Wonders of the Solar System" (I wonder why these series don't come to Israel) said in one of the episodes: "Despite the fact that astrology is a pile of nonsense, Jupiter can and in fact has a strong influence on the planet Through the power of... attraction". This comment caused complaints from viewers who claimed that Cox's words were baseless without allowing an alternative opinion to be expressed. Why was the opinion of an astrologer working according to a different body of knowledge accumulated over thousands of years not sought?"
The BBC's complaints department responded relatively logically: "Cox's position was clearly that of a scientist investigating the facts behind natural phenomena in this world and in other worlds. The belief that there is not enough evidence to support astrology is the property of many in the scientific community, who hold the opinion that astrology is a question of faith and not science." The head of the department also added that the comment was colorful, but answered the viewers' demands regarding the style and content of the program.

Cox noted another commenter who claimed: "His comment was unproven, unscientific and unsupported by research. Did he examine his birth chart? I have never seen him at astrologer's conferences or read anything he wrote about astrology. According to the BBC guidelines, astrology must be given a balanced status."
In response, Cox told Jones: "The BBC asked me to respond to the complaint and my response was" I apologize for the astrological community for not clarifying myself. I should have said that the New Age nonsense is rowing under the fabric of our civilization.” It's a shame they didn't reply to the commenter and said instead that the professor's comment is his personal and not the BBC's and is based on his belief that there is not enough evidence to support astrology."

Vaccines and autism - a desire for non-applications caused exactly the opposite

13 years ago, the triple vaccine hit the headlines, an example of a failure in reporting on a scientific issue - and the BBC was not yet among the worst of them. The report was driven by a medical panic, fueled by a variety of misinformation campaigns that were given exposure by the BBC and others long after the technical debate had ended.
According to the survey by the Council for Economics and Social Sciences, at the height of the panic, most people felt that because both sides in the debate were given equal time by the media, there must be supporting evidence for both sides (even though even then the results were overwhelmingly rejected by experts). Trying to be impartial, caused exactly the opposite result.

As a result of this experience, a relatively balanced report was given regarding the bird flu that occurred a few years later. On the other hand, in the report of a girl who died on the day she received a vaccine against the papilloma virus, no restraint was given to the public panic, even though it was proven that she died as a result of a heart defect that she had previously, that is, the holy of holies at the expense of scientific accuracy.

To part B of the article - how global warming should be covered