One of the questions at the very heart of science journalism is which sources to trust: to which scientists should we turn for comment and explanation? What makes one scientist’s opinion more worthy than that held by their colleagues?

Journalists and science communicators gathered in one of the WCSJ’s parallel sessions to discuss the topic and share experiences from around the world. Under the heading “Great talent: but are they credible?” chairman Robyn Williams, from ABC Australia, gave examples of scientists who had gained notoriety for their interactions with the press – from Carl Sagan, who “felt it was his duty to speak to the public about science”, through to researchers who turned out to be fraudsters.

Colin Blakemore, Professor of Neuroscience at Oxford University and a former Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, used three examples to illustrate how comments from scientists can seriously affect the direction taken by a news story.

He highlighted how the relationship between journalists and scientists had changed between the 1980s – when government ministers interpreted scientific data on “mad cow disease” for the press rather than the scientists themselves – via the reporting of individual views on genetically-modified (GM) foods through to the mature debate around stem cells, with scientists directly lobbying Members of Parliament to pass the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

While listing some of what he saw as the advantages of scientists engaging with the media – such as revealing the scientific process to the public and painting scientists as “normal” people – Blakemore also highlighted some of the disadvantages, including the “showmanship” perpetuated by some researchers.

Speaking from the journalistic front line, the Guardian’s Alok Jha explained how he went about judging the authenticity of comments from scientists. While many of the comments he uses in his stories come from his vast web of contacts, Jha – who now writes mainly about technology and the environment – said that, if he came across a scientist who he had not encountered before, then he would talk to his newspaper colleagues or to other scientists working in the same field.

While journalists and scientists in the UK have debated the planting of GM crops and research using stem cells, our colleagues around the world have tackled other issues. Diran Onifade, from the Nigerian Television Authority, highlighted a defamation case in which he was involved, concerning claims around a treatment for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). While he could not go into too much detail due to the live nature of a related court case, Onifade’s example highlighted the importance of journalists trusting their sources.

The point was highlighted again by Jha during the busy questions and answers sessions that followed the panel’s presentations. The crowd in the packed room heard Jha explain that journalists were putting their own reputations on the line when they selected the scientists whose research to cover or chose the experts to comment on stories. Blakemore suggested the idea of peer reviewing science journalism – an idea that several speakers dismissed as unworkable in practice due to time pressures but which Jha said was already partially in place, as he would go back again and again to the sources who had previously proved to be reliable. 

Peter Ranscombe