The dilemma of the talking head

With great power comes great responsibility – but is it down to the latest wave of high profile scientists and communicators to discuss topics outside of their specialism? Trust in science is at an all-time high – a 2013 Ipsos-Mori poll revealed that 83% of people trusted scientists to tell the truth compared to 63% in 1997, while 11% thought scientists tell fibs. Only doctors and teachers received a higher trust rating. The general public appears to have a renewed faith in science (forgetting controversies like GM crops and the MMR jab) and are becoming more interested in what scientists have to say. There has been an increase in scientific awareness as people have begun to realise what an important role science plays in their everyday lives; from the technology they use to the economy we’re all part of. And we are beginning to see the return of the celebrity scientist and science communicators. Their presence in the media world has bolstered the opinion of the profession in the eyes of the general public, but should it be down to them to keep Joe Bloggs informed? A scientists’ expertise should make them a trusted figure on the subject – after all you wouldn’t accept a medical diagnosis from anyone other than a doctor, so it follows that science-based information should come straight from the scientists. The new wave of media-friendly scientists and science communicators has a duty to provide information to their peers and the general public alike. Their expertise – and the fact the general public trusts them – places them in the position of providing news, good or bad, to those who actually want to listen. But is it fair that just because they have knowledge on climate change for example, that they are expected to field questions on medical ethics, drug discovery or nanotechnology? Physicist Professor Brian Cox has fronted numerous programs about physics and astronomy – and that’s fine because that’s his area of expertise. He’s even done a biology-based program, from a physics point of view – fantastic, we all lapped it up – but you wouldn’t expect him to offer a detailed comment on the benefits of alternative energies or on why homeopathy is phooey. He probably has his own opinions on the matter, but they are just that – his opinions. And it’s true that I’d rather hear Cox’s opinion on homeopathy than I would an unqualified politician or Prince Charles, but is it fair to expect him to comment publicly on something which is not his specialism just because he’s a scientist? Mark Miodownik says he’s often asked to comment on scientific topics outside his specialism just because he’s a scientist – and when asked he usually tries to point them toward the right specialist. His decision to answer questions depends on the situation: “When I was on Any Questions I was representing all of science and engineering and answered all q’s,” he tweeted, “but if it’s for a newspaper quote, clearly best to find the specific expert.” Ben Goldacre takes a different stance: “There’s no algorithm to decide if you’re qualified or should say yes/no on something like that! I decide based on whether I think I have anything useful to add that others might miss, whether I fancy it, and whether I have time,” he tweeted. Fiona MacDonald, ScienceAlert Editor agrees: “I also think it’s ok to comment on TV etc on new breakthroughs in different fields with general sci knowledge.” And that’s an interesting point – you don’t necessarily have to be qualified to answer the questions posed, just have something useful to offer the discussion. I guess whether a scientist is willing answer a question or offer a comment on something outside their specialism is down to whether they feel comfortable offering their opinion based on the information they have. Specialism or not, the media-savvy scientist bears the brunt of scientific questioning, and whether they offer their opinion, or cold, hard facts they must be doing something right.