Efforts by the science editor of the climate denying think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) to promote individualsโ freedom to make โfactually inaccurateโ statements on important scientific issues in the media were ignored by MPs in a new report out today.
The House of Commonsโ Science and Technology committee today concluded its inquiry into science communication, including reasons for public mistrust in scientific reporting. In written evidence to the inquiry, the GWPFโs David Whitehouse said, โSome argue that free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements. But it doesโ.
But despite Whitehouseโs best attempts โ including not declaring his role with the GWPF in his submission โ the committeeโs report takes a strong stance in support of accurate science journalism and recommends that the government ensure โa robust redress mechanism is provided for when science is misreportedโ.
Anti-Peer Review, Pro Inaccuracies
Whitehouse made a lot of statements that jarred with the committeeโs findings. The report does not quote Whitehouseโs evidence at any point, instead including advice from respected mainstream scientific institutions such as the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, and Science Media Centre.
In his submission to the inquiry, Whitehouse said reporters currently give โtoo much authority to papers published in peer-reviewed journalsโ.
Peer-review is seen as a hallmark of quality, as it means it has been signed off by the academic community as scientifically robust.
The GWPFโs reports are reviewed by โinternal and external expertsโ, it has previously claimed. This involves sending the reports out to members of the organisationโs โadvisory panelโ for comment, including a host of well-known climate science deniers.
Whitehouse also said that it was the responsibility of reporters to ensure viewers understood when fringe opinions were being presented. He disagreed that the concept of โfalse balanceโ โ where opposing views are presented even when there is scientific consensus โ was a problem.
The governmentโs chief scientific advisor, Mark Walport, told the committee this was a particular issue when it came to climate change โ โthe climate debate is an example of where people have claimed to be experts who are notโ.
In 2014, the committee criticised the BBC for presenting the views of climate scientists alongside climate science deniers. It said this represented false balance, potentially leading viewers to think each perspective should be given equal weight despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on major aspects of human-caused climate change.
Whitehouse goes on to suggest it was down to โthe craft of the reporter to place the interviewees into a proper contextโ.
The Academy of Medical Sciences disagreed. In a recent report on communicating evidence to the media, which was considered by the committee, it said that:
โall parties involved in the generation and communication of evidence, including scientists, press officers and journalists, have a shared responsibility to ensure that the public receives information that is accessible but also accurate and balancedโ.
The committee said there should be space for public scientific debate, but criticised some media outlets โwhich often have an agenda which allows inadequate place for opposing evidenceโ potentially leading the public to be misled.
But Whitehouse went further than suggesting journalists should carefully consider all views. He concluded that people should be free to spread inaccurate information in the media:
โIf the price of science journalism is for some to tolerate the presence on air or in print of those they think are wrong then that is a price worth paying.โ
He continued: โthe freedom of speech principle does not mean that you have to be factually accurate. It is freedom, not accuracy or responsibility that is mandatedโ.
Whitehouse did not respond to DeSmog UKโs request for comment.
Updated 30/03/2017: The quote in the second line was altered.
Main image credit: Pixabay CC0
