BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change

Gavin Esler was criticized in the revision to be soft on climate skeptics in an interview on BBC2 's Newsnight. Photo: PA

The BBC is to renew its science coverage after an independent review has highlighted the weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent scientific news controversy, such as climate change, genetically modified crops and the MMR vaccine giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints.

The comprehensive review found science signaling network was generally high quality and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but urged the issuer to deal with the different areas of interest.

Commissioned last year to assess the fairness and accuracy in the BBC science coverage through television, radio and the internet, said the review, the network at times was so determined to be unbiased that put fringe views on par with well made: a strategy that did some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.

The criticism was particularly relevant to the stories on issues such as global warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given equal weighting of broad scientific consensus, creating what the report described as "false balance".

The review included an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at University College London and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London coverage of science through the BBC in may, June and July of 2009 and 2010.

In his report, Jones lamented the narrow range of sources journalists used to stories, poor communication among journalists in different parts of the Organization and a lack of knowledge of science.

"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in what he is doing BBC science. Is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, though, there is a but, "Jones told reporters on Wednesday.

Jones compared the approach of the BBC to debate opposition to ask a maverick biologist and mathematician and is equal to what two plus two. When the mathematician says four and five, the maverick says the audience is left to conclude that the answer is somewhere in between.

The report will disappoint some skeptics of climate change which they hoped would find the BBC at fault for promoting a green agenda. "There is a consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," said Jones. By failing to pursue the debate, the BBC missed other stories, he added.

Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust said that the company should avoid bias by deleting "and include dissenting voices in debates on matters of science. But he added that clearer identification of competence of the individuals and agendas would help an audience judge their comments.

In further criticism, Jones called on the BBC to be more proactive in finding stories. Many came from South-East of England, and about 75% were based on press releases, he said. "Simply the BBC feed rather than hunting, lacks large amounts of scientific information," he said. Another concern was the lack of women who appeared in stories or covered.

BBC Trust welcomed the review and announced a series of Executive changes, approved by the BBC, to address the concerns raised. Journalists will be offered training on impartiality and a forum will be set up within the company to foster better links between science journalists who work in different parts of the organization.

The Executive of the BBC said it would also nominate a new science editor to raise the profile of science on BBC news and oversee other planned initiatives.

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said the report "underscores the problem which, in turn, a drive for impartiality at all costs from the BBC can lead to a highly misleading presentation of science in situations where the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction than another. It is encouraging that the Executive of the BBC and BBC Trust accept this criticism and will work with programme managers to improve their understanding of this problem. "

Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said: "the BBC has played a significant role in creating the current wave of interest in science. The way it covers science is generally of very high quality. However, it is important that has been recognized the need to separate the opinion from evidence in coverage of certain topics. It is important to have the debate, but marginal prominent expressed opinion – but not well based on evidence – it may mislead the public. The BBC usually respects this but the challenge is to get it right all the time. "

Director Bob Ward, policy and communication Research Institute on climate change and the environment at the London School of Economics, said it was crucial for the BBC "challenge inaccurate and misleading claims made by bloggers, activists and politicians ' reject and deny the findings of mainstream science, for ideological reasons.

"The BBC is required by law to not sacrifice accuracy for the impartiality of the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors that allow climate change skeptics "self-proclaimed" mislead the public with misrepresentations and unsubstantiated, "he said.

View the original article here