www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods: the need for
informed debate is greater than ever. But you won't find it in the papers,
November 2005.

The biggest preoccupation of politicians for most of the 20th century was
economic affairs. The exchange rate, the balance of payments, currency
reserves, tariffs, taxes, interest rates, wages, prices - these issues, in
peacetime at least, dominated the political debate and, therefore, the
newspaper comment pages.

But governments of both left and right now leave most of that to the market.
No political leader would announce an economic plan, propose further state
control of industry or talk of "squeezing demand".

Most economic matters are no longer contested. Instead, the issues are
increasingly scientific and technological. How do we cope with global
warming? Should we embrace nuclear power? What controls are needed on GM
crops? Are mobile phones bad for us? Should we prevent the creation of
"designer babies"? If so, how? Are biological attacks a serious threat?

Just as most voters understood little about economics, so they understand
little about, say, the processes behind climate change. Here, they might
look for guidance to trusted press commentators. But there is a problem.
Thirty years ago, most editors and columnists could claim at least a
rudimentary knowledge of economics and industry. Some would have taken the
PPE degree at Oxford; others, such as the late Peter Jenkins, had started
out as labour reporters. How many today can claim the smallest understanding
of science? How many science correspondents become editors or columnists?

In any case, as The Guardian's Bad Science column shows every week, some
science and health specialists in the press are far from reliable, and even
the country's most trusted news source, the BBC, can be almost laughably
ill-informed on these issues. The result is a curious vacuum at the centre
of our papers, with the most important issues of the day not discussed. You
are more likely to read an acute piece about the Church of England than
about scientific research.

When the Prime Minister hints at a return to nuclear energy, we should
expect vigorous, informed debate. But our leading commentators are almost
silent; their columns cover, yet again, the future of the Conservatives, the
prospects for a Gordon Brown takeover, or the latest schools initiative.

Newspaper readers are uncertain about such issues as GM crops and global
warming; worried, but prepared to be reassured by someone whose knowledge
and judgement they trust.

A handful of distinguished scientists - Steve Jones and Robert Winston, for
example - make occasional appearances on the op-ed pages. A few columnists,
such as George Monbiot in The Guardian, at least give the impression that
they grasp the technicalities. The Times has a weekly op-ed Science
Notebook. But few columnists with scientific backgrounds get the prominence
and scope to range as widely as economics specialists such as Hamish McRae
in The Independent or Anatole Kaletsky in The Times. Business specialists
such as Jeff Randall and Neil Collins are headhunted and paid six-figure
salaries. Few science writers are so lucky.

[www.independent.co.uk]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail