While it's not my normal bedtime read, a recent report from the BBC Trust caught my eye. The Trust commissioned Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, to review the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage. There was also an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC. As regular readers of my blog will know, I'm a keen advocate of engaging everyone in science; the BBC plays a significant role in creating interest in science, being widely viewed and highly trusted by the general public.
In his assessment, Professor Jones finds much to praise; he suggests, in the main, science coverage at the BBC is of a high quality. He praises the breadth, depth and professionalism of coverage. However, he does believe there is room for improvement, particularly with regard to the BBC’s impartiality policy.
Professor Jones points out that at times editorial staff can be 'over-rigid' when following the BBC's guidelines on impartiality, failing to take into account the 'non-contentious' nature of some stories. There is a danger that by trying to 'balance' a scientific argument you can actually over represent marginal scientific opinions giving them greater credence than they deserve. Professor Jones cites past coverage of claims about the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of GM crops. To avoid 'minority opinion' appearing to be genuine scientific debate, he suggests the BBC adopt a more common-sense approach to 'due impartiality' in future.
I think the BBC gets its coverage right more often than they get it wrong, but I am encouraged that the BBC executive and BBC Trust accept the criticisms raised and are working to address them.
What do you think? Is there a danger that by trying to be too balanced, scientific arguments could be skewed?