{"id":2546,"date":"2011-01-25T07:39:06","date_gmt":"2011-01-25T07:39:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/?p=2546"},"modified":"2011-01-25T15:34:47","modified_gmt":"2011-01-25T15:34:47","slug":"science-under-attack","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/2011\/01\/25\/science-under-attack\/","title":{"rendered":"Science under attack – updated with Youtube links to the video"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

NB this is now available on Youtube – there is a link at the foot of the page.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The BBC\u00a0broadcast a documentary last night<\/a> with the above title as part of the Horizon series, presented by Sir Paul Nurse,\u00a0President of the Royal Society and Nobel Prize winner.\u00a0 The programme, which was excellent, sought to examine a strange paradox.\u00a0 Modern society is essentially built upon the fruits of scientific endeavour, and science is an essential part of our future if we are to continue to maintain an advanced lifestyle.\u00a0 Despite this, public trust in scientists has been declining rapidly and is now at a low ebb.<\/p>\n

Sir Paul sought to explore\u00a0this problem primarily through a review of the science of climate change.\u00a0 He first\u00a0demonstrated the strength and diversity\u00a0of the datasets upon which our understanding of the climate system is built, and the robustness of the interpretations and models that have resulted.\u00a0 He then interviewed two leading proponents of the deniers’ position.\u00a0 The first was\u00a0a climate scientist (Professor Fred Singer), who claimed that climate change is caused by the sun through cosmic ray variation\u00a0(one wonders how many more times this theory can be debunked).\u00a0 The second was the Daily Telegraph’s online blogger James Delingpole, a key player in the storm in a teacup Climategate “scandal”, who popped up in the programme\u00a0twice.\u00a0 He\u00a0was\u00a0surprisingly\u00a0(and frankly rather\u00a0amusingly)\u00a0floored by a simple explanation of consensus (take a look – it occurs about 28 minutes and 30 seconds into the programme<\/a>), and\u00a0then later in the programme (about 40 minutes 15 seconds into the piece)\u00a0explained that in his view peer review is now “irredeemably corrupted”, replaced by “peer-to-peer review”.\u00a0 This\u00a0is of course an extraordinary position to take, and is far from the reality of the\u00a0scientific world.\u00a0 Delingpole described his role as being that of an “interpreter of interpretations” – i.e. that he writes about other peoples’ interpretations of the peer reviewed science.\u00a0 Such a fragmented\u00a0line of communication, especially when the initial interpreter may not actually be in a position to interpret the science properly, or may have a particular political perspective, inevitably leads to the problems that science now faces.\u00a0 As an aside, I am surprised that Delingpole was so apparently willing to undermine his own role, but he I guess he will claim that he was misrepresented through clever\u00a0editing.<\/p>\n

The programme also briefly looked at similar issues around genetically modified crops and denial of HIV being responsible for AIDS, demonstrating that here sections of the public are willing to set aside the robust scientific evidence for\u00a0theories based upon weak lines of argument and misunderstandings.<\/p>\n

Sir Paul ended the programme by emphasising the importance of scientists engaging with the public in communicating their findings effectively.\u00a0 I could not agree more, which of course is one of the reasons for blogging.<\/p>\n

The programme is available for the next\u00a0four weeks\u00a0on the BBC iPlayer here:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/iplayer\/episode\/b00y4yql\/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack\/<\/a><\/p>\n

UPDATE:<\/em><\/strong> The first part of the video can also be found on youtube here<\/a>, and should be visible below:\u00a0<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=miwJxFBOlX8<\/a><\/p>\n

The remaining sections are here:<\/p>\n