According to an Editorial in today’s Nature ( 461, 1174; 2009 – free to read online), "the temptation for scientists and their institutions to spin their research to the media, or to go publicity-mongering, is always there. And — as illustrated by the excessive public-relations campaign surrounding “Ida”, a fossil presented as a missing link in human evolution (see Nature 459, 484; 2009 and Nature 461, 1040; 2009) — too many in the media will buy into the initial hype. Such behaviour is corrosive to the process of scholarly scientific communication. Research institutions must not allow it to become the norm."

The Editorial discusses the recent announcement of results from an HIV vaccine trial in Thailand, in which the trial’s sponsors announced that it had been a success in that the vaccine had a statistically significant effect on preventing infection. But the full data for the claim were not made available for almost a month after the announcement – and included two other data sets in which the effects were not statistically significant.

Fortunately, states the Editorial, such stories are still rare in science. “Witness the way scientists have behaved since the beginning of the current H1N1 flu pandemic, in which the urgent threat to health creates legitimate tensions between getting results out fast and respecting peer review. Most researchers have negotiated this tension well, through a combination of fast-track publication by journals and online pre-publication sharing of preliminary data — but not through hyping their results.”

From the prescient visions of space travel in 2001: A Space Odyssey, through to the apocalyptic warnings presented in The Day After Tomorrow, science fiction cinema has examined many of the theoretical possibilities and consequences of science and technology. But just how plausibly does the genre interpret such possibilities and how accurately can it predict what the future holds? Have the futuristic celluloid visions of film-makers inspired scientists to fulfil some of these visions? And are movies the best way of promoting environmental awareness to contemporary societies? Join a lively debate organized by the weekly science journal, Nature.

Speakers

Adam Rutherford (chair) is an audio video editor at Nature, science writer and presents television and radio programmes, most recently Cell for BBC4.

Henry Gee (panellist) is a senior biology editor at Nature. He also edits the ‘Futures’ science fiction column in Nature, and has written several non-fiction and fiction books.

Mark Henderson (panellist) is science editor of The Times and a double winner of the Norwich Union / Medical Journalists’ Association awards. He is the author of 50 Genetics Ideas You Really Need to Know.

Gia Milinovich (panellist) is a technology writer and broadcaster as well as a new media consultant for the film industry. She has worked on various films, including Sunshine, 28 Weeks Later, X Files: I Want To Believe and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The Nature Autumn ’09 Debate – Science in Cinema is at Kings Place, London on Monday 9 November at 19:00. For further details and to book, see the Kings Place website.

Bad journalism is best met not with red-faced indignation, but with good journalism. The truth is the best revenge. So concludes an Editorial in the current issue of Nature (461, 848; 2009) about an email campaign to a US climate scientist who backed out of participating in a documentary when he realized that the film-makers had not been clear with him about their intentions. Occasionally, scientists have been hoodwinked by the media, but these are rare events compared with the vast majority of programmes and other media articles. From the Editorial:

“Most journalists and documentarians are honestly trying to report the facts, and scientists have a responsibility to tell the public about their work — especially if it is supported by public money.

Fortunately, scientists can do much to protect themselves. When someone asks for an interview, for example, a scientist should enquire about starting assumptions, the intended audience and the identity of the project’s backers. And, if possible, researchers should check the earlier work of the journalists and any companies behind the film for a partisan tone, or unacceptable levels of sensationalism.

But if these efforts fail, and it is discovered too late that the film-makers are bent on using an on-tape interview to promote a view that seems unscientific, the question becomes what steps to take. There is rarely a way to withdraw an interview that was given on the record, for good reason. In any case, making a fuss can be a gift of publicity to film-makers. Schneider admits that he might have spared himself the deluge of e-mails had he just ignored the makers of Not Evil Just Wrong.

A better approach might well be to complain to the television channels and broadcasting regulators, many of which have standards for their programming. The Great Global Warming Swindle was censured by Ofcom, Britain’s broadcasting regulator, for breaking several rules in its broadcasting code. And when the same documentary was aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it was followed by a point-by-point debate and rebuttal.”

In its October Editorial, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (16, 1003; 2009) asks researchers if they know how it feels to have 2,500 pairs of eyes watch them work. “Imagine the crowd staring intensely at you as you set up a PCR, admiring your smooth pipetting action and wondering what on earth is so fascinating about the DNA sequence you have in front of you. Hold on, they don’t have to just wonder, they can buzz on the intercom to ask you what you’re doing. That is the daily experience of hundreds of scientists who work at the Natural History Museum in London. It probably takes some getting used to.” The Darwin Centre is pulling in the crowds as the United Kingdom’s latest—and perhaps bravest—approach to communicating science. Researchers are on show as they prepare specimens for analysis, sequence DNA and compare and classify species. Scientists also take turns to give daily talks on their work in the new Attenborough studio.

The Darwin Centre is a fascinating exhibit, but it follows a long trend of efforts to demystify science. This phase of science communication began in the late 1980s with the well-meaning, but sometimes high-handed, approach of trying to teach the public what scientists thought they should know. But through trial and error a more informal and more equal way of talking about science began to dominate, particularly through the Café Scientifique movement – described in more detail in the Editorial.

The Editorial concludes that In the tough times ahead, science needs all the support it can get. Without constructive engagement with the public over subjects such as cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells, scientists risk ceding control to special interest groups with political agendas. “Engagement and listening to the public do pay off, and now is the time to prove that not only do we value the intellectual pursuit of science, but we understand its implications for society.”

The next Nature Debate is on 21 September at King’s Place, London, and marries together ideas scientific and pecuniary. The 1980s saw the rise of the ‘rocket scientists’ of finance – as engineers, mathematicians and physicists rejected careers in science and technology and instead opted to work for banks. What part did they play in the financial crisis? And what is the future of science in finance? Join leading experts from science and banking as they debate whether the crisis was the result of bankers and regulators failing to grasp complicated, expert knowledge; and whether scientific knowledge – in particular fields such as complex systems, ecological economics and human behaviour – could help to ensure that economies are better understood and better regulated.

And those leading experts? Physicist turned financial mathematician Tim Johnson (Heriot-Watt University); researcher, entrepreneur and journalist John Browning; and Nature Consulting Editor Ehsan Masood. Nature Network community manager and London expert Matt Brown will be in the Rotunda bar before and after the event, and looks foward to meeting you there.

Book tickets for the Nature Debate.

Nature’s Recession Watch special: with news, opinion, podcast, features and blogs, the journal keeps you updated on what it all means for science. Will your research funding be cut? How secure is your company or research institution? And can the meltdown actually create opportunities for science?

Nature and Icon Films cordially invite you to a private screening of the feature film CREATION.

Please join us on Wednesday 16 September 2009 at the Science Museum in London for this advance screening. Director Jon Amiel and Oscar winning Producer Jeremy Thomas will introduce the film, followed by a screening on the Science Museum’s IMAX screen.

CREATION is the powerful story of Charles Darwin and the single most explosive idea in history.

Based upon Randal Keynes’s book, Annie’s Box about the life of his great great grandfather Charles Darwin, the film stars Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.

Drinks reception: 1830

Screening: 1915

Location: Science Museum, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2DD, UK.

Please RSVP by email. It is essential to RSVP in order to confirm that a seat is available.

From the Nature review of Annie’s Box (Nature 411, 739-740; 2001), by Bruce Weber:

Keynes sees in Darwin’s relationship with his daughter threads that tie together disparate aspects of his life and thought. He makes a compelling case and reveals an aspect of Darwin that should be incorporated into our total picture of him. The writing is graceful, the illustrations are apt and affecting, and the thesis is convincingly presented.

The Editorial in the August issue of Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (16, 797; 2009) highlights a Pew/AAAS survey revealing striking differences between the public’s and scientists’ views of US scientific achievement and its societal benefits. According to the Editorial, this conclusion reinforces the fact that more must be done to effectively communicate with, educate and engage the public.

The survey involved 2,000 people from the general public and 2,500 scientists, including teachers, researchers and administrators, aiming to discover how we think about science and its impact on society. One of the disparities revealed was that whereas many participants from the general public (84%) acknowledged the importance of scientific contributions to society, only 17% felt that US scientific achievements are best in the world, in striking contrast to US scientists’ own assessment — 94% of respondents thinking that US scientific achievements are best best or better than average compared to other industrialized nations.

The Editorial asks why there is an apparent disconnect between the public view of science’s contributions and how scientists perceive the quality and importance of US-based research? Education may be one factor. Of the scientists surveyed, 85% viewed the lack of understanding of science by the general public as a major problem. Indeed, the general public barely passed a short 12-question quiz of basic textbook science (example question: “True or False: Electrons are smaller than atoms”). Scientists are also critical of science communication via television and newspaper coverage .

Some of the greatest differences in perception are on issues such as climate change and evolution. Whereas 97% of the scientists surveyed believe that humans and living things evolve over time, 61% of the public agreed, but roughly a third of these people felt that this was guided by a supreme being, with more than a quarter believing that there is lack of scientific consensus on this issue. Although most of the public respondents feel that climate change is occurring, only half think that this is due to human activity, as opposed to 84% of scientists surveyed.

The NSMB Editorial concludes that although improving the quality of education is obviously important, “the survey clearly reveals that the general public applies its own beliefs when absorbing and filtering scientific information. As scientists, rather than speaking down or lecturing to the general public (or even worse, throwing our hands up in despair), we may be better off showing them a bit more of the respect they have for us and trying to see things from their perspective.”