What is politicised science?

Stories before and after a science issue has become politicised

Consider articles Appendix 1 – World first growing trees with coal seam gas water 18 May 2009 Resources Beat and Appendix 2 – Coal seam gas a takeover delight – ABC PM 2010 about coal seam gas resources (from 2009 and 2010) against articles Appendix 3 – Coal-seam gas pollution spill went unreported _ The Australian and Appendix 4 – The Australian – Coalitions coal seam gas buffer zone rejected – 2013 from 2012 and 2013. Note the [small] mention of hydrocarbons and salt content in coal seam gas water in the 2009 report. You can Google headlines about coal seam gas to consider the history of the politicised science issue.

Discuss it/on your own: How have the writers approached the material differently before and after? Has the choice of sources/talent changed? Has the ‘people’ or emotional element of the story changed? Do the writers quote scientists different or more/less? Describe the political element/s that have been introduced. For other politicised science issues, can you think of an event, for example, that shifted the focus from science to politics?

What happens when science becomes political?

Politicised science issues

Discuss it: Think of three politicised science topics. Talk about the motivation/s for the issues becoming politicised. Why is it a more emotive issue than just a scientific one? Are there key/fundamental motivations that come up more than once? How could you report on these motivations and vested interests?

Practice/on your own: Pick a politicised science topic. List the motivation/s for the issues becoming politicised. For the topic you’ve chosen (if appropriate), list some of the vested interests (institutions/companies and/or individuals) involved in the issue. Write a paragraph about these interests that you could add to a media report (on the chosen topic).

Incorporating scientific content into a report about a politicised science issue

Below is an abstract summary of a study into childhood vaccinations and their link with diabetes.

Background   A link between childhood vaccinations and the development of type 1 diabetes has been proposed.

Methods  We evaluated a cohort comprising all children born in Denmark from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2000, for whom detailed information on vaccinations and type 1 diabetes was available. Using Poisson regression models, we estimated rate ratios according to vaccination status, including the trend associated with the number of doses, among all children and in a subgroup of children who had siblings with type 1 diabetes. Given recent claims of clustering of cases of diabetes two to four years after vaccination, we also estimated rate ratios during the period after vaccination.

Results   Type 1 diabetes was diagnosed in 681 children during 4,720,517 person-years of follow-up. The rate ratio for type 1 diabetes among children who received at least one dose of vaccine, as compared with unvaccinated children, was 0.91 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.12) for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine; 1.02 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.37) for diphtheria, tetanus, and inactivated poliovirus vaccine; 0.96 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.30) for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, and inactivated poliovirus vaccine; 1.06 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.80 to 1.40) for whole-cell pertussis vaccine; 1.14 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.45) for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; and 1.08 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.57) for oral poliovirus vaccine. The development of type 1 diabetes in genetically predisposed children (defined as those who had siblings with type 1 diabetes) was not significantly associated with vaccination. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any clustering of cases two to four years after vaccination with any vaccine.

Conclusions   These results do not support a causal relation between childhood vaccination and type 1 diabetes.

[Hviid, Anders; Stellfeld, Michael; Wohlfahrt, Jan; Melbye, Mads. Childhood Vaccination and Type 1 Diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 350. 14 (Apr 1, 2004): 1398–404.]

Discuss it: How would the content of a media article, using this scientific information, be different for various audiences? Think about local, regional, national and international audiences. What elements would be present in all stories? What elements would you leave out, and for which audiences?

Practice/on your own: Write a headline and the first three paragraphs of a news report based on this scientific information, for your local council area and for a national newspaper. List the different sources you would intend to interview/quote for these two different pieces.

If you want to, find examples of articles that do a good job of conveying risk, explaining technical jargon, responsibly conveying uncertainty, and using credible sources. Justify your choices.

How do you keep accuracy and continuity of research that has become politicised?

‘Bad’ science journalism

Read the blog post (Appendix 5 – Murdering a scientific paper on sea-level rise – the Graham Lloyd way – author Graham Readfearn) Graham Readfearn wrote about spurious reporting by The Australian. The Australian has now removed its article, but the original text was captured:

“The latest science on sea level rises has found no link to global warming and no increase in the rate of glacier melt over the past 100 years.

A paper published last month in Journal of Climate highlights one of the great uncertainties in climate change research – will ocean levels rise by more than the current 3mm a year?

The peer-reviewed article, “20th-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?” by JM Gregory, sought to explain the factors involved in sea-level rises during the last century. It found that sea-level rises had not accelerated “despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing” or human influence.

Australia’s pre-eminent sea-level scientist, John Church, contributed to the paper, which said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea-level rises in the 20th century.

Australia is at the forefront of global research on sea-level rises, but must double its funding to $10 million a year to match other countries in the search for an answer.

There is no dispute that sea levels are rising and significant concerns about what the recent increased rate of melt of Arctic ice might mean. But the key question is whether the rate of sea-level rise will accelerate and, if so, when and by how much? …”

Discuss it: Talk about the issues that Graham Readfern raises in his post (for example: incorrectly referencing uncertainty, misrepresenting the rate of sea-level rise).

Practice/on your own: Pick three paragraphs to rewrite of The Australian article above, using the scientific information provided in Graham’s post.

Keeping the context in a serial story

Use the example article (Appendix 6 – Coal seam gas highlights planning flaws_News in Science (ABC Science)) about coal seam gas from ABC News (Coal seam gas ‘highlights planning flaws’). Remember that the article is from 2011.

Imagine that there was little media attention to the issue until six months later, when there was another development in the coal seam gas story in Queensland. The state government has authorised a pilot area for coal seam gas trials in a rich agricultural area, which has angered and confused many locals and farmers. You have been tasked with covering this new development.

Discuss it: Using the example article as a starting point, talk about what kind of scientific detail you would include in the next media report. What about referring to scientists’ quotes and the environmental impact studies? Would you include more scientific detail than the 2011 article? What would you suggest as hyperlinks for the online version of your report? Who would you interview?

Practice/on your own: Write three paragraphs to give your audience context on what coal seam gas is, the scientific/environmental concerns, and key issues. List three hyperlinks you would include with your report, and two sources you would interview.

Does the medium matter when reporting on politicised science?

Different media for politicised science issues

Consider these examples of different media on the topic of genetically modified crops: this long-form radio story, this science-program TV story, and this online/print story.

Discuss it: How have the reporters covered the subject? Are there different choices of sources/talent? Do they quote scientists differently or more/less? How does the storytelling change between the different media?

Practice/on your own: Try your hand at writing the first minute of a science-program-style TV story using the online/print story topic. Think about how you will set the scene, how you will include quotes (i.e. cut the sources in) and where.