THE CAFE
Pick of recent correspondence

Swine flu and the media
Professor W C Russell

As a virologist I was highly critical of Kenneth Roy's 6 June polemic on the apparent shortcomings of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and especially its declaration of the pandemic status of swine flu. He also ridiculed official statements on the outbreak as being unnecessarily scary in their outlook. It was an excellent piece of journalism but was it really fair and more to the point was it an accurate reflection of the status of the virus in relation to its disease potential? As he correctly pointed out the disease is currently rather mild but, as those who work in the field know, the virus could mutate and be subject to 'genetic reassortment' as it spreads globally and infects both humans and animals who currently appear to have no immunity.
     There have certainly been some predictions made which could promote anxiety but these were given on the assumption that the virus would become more virulent. These statements were, of course, eagerly lapped up by the media and made very good headlines (ie negative and scary?). The WHO in declaring a pandemic were acting quite appropriately by calling into play the administrative and logistic apparatus in every country to deal with any possible increase in virus virulence (eg the availability of anti-virals and vaccine).
     As it is, the declaration has already shown that there are surprising deficiencies in many countries and it has revealed that developing countries need help in meeting the WHO guidelines. It is also important to place on record that, contrary to Kenneth Roy's assertions, the WHO does have many projects underway in developing countries, eg these in co-operation with the Bill Gates Foundation and our own Department of International Development, in combating malaria and HIV infections.
     These comments highlight the problems that scientists have in effectively communicating with the media and through them to the public at large on complex scientific issues. While it is often assumed that the separation of the population into two cultures described some years ago by C P Snow is no longer valid there is no doubt that most journalists and politicians belong to a culture which is not 'scientifically savvy'. One need only cite the vigorous campaign by many Scottish newspapers about the dangers of the MMR vaccine – once again a good scare story – which has now led to outbreaks of measles in children and in a few cases to more severe outcomes.
     Another illustration of the gulf between scientists and the media can be seen in the ongoing saga of the putative dangers inherent in GM crops. This campaign is well funded and has been immensely successful in Europe and the UK and has been nurtured by 'pseudo-scientists' in the face of the opinions expressed by these scientists who are working in plant biology. Risk awareness is an important concept in considering such issues but very rarely is it applied effectively.
     At the heart of many of these controversies is the inability of most scientists to communicate their results effectively with the media. In fact, science is now so competitive that most practitioners do not have the time and the skills to interact with those outside of their own community. To some extent there has been some progress here in that there are now courses for science graduates in the arts of communication and there are several organisations which do provide good information for non-scientists and the media. For example, one of these has an excellent piece on GM crops: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk
     It is now generally accepted that as a nation we have to develop our scientific and technical skills if we are to make our way on the global stage. Yet the critical decisions on scientific policies are made by politicians and civil servants who have had little or no scientific training – there are probably no more than five MSPs (out of a total of 129) who have a scientific background – and the situation in the Westminster and European parliaments is no better.
     In my own conversations with parliamentarians it is evident that they are more concerned about their constituents' anxieties than about the scientific validity of a particular issue. This may be understandable but it does place a great responsibility on the media to provide correct information and for scientists to ensure that this happens. So far all of us have fallen short in this regard (even Kenneth Roy) and we should try to do better.