Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

ENVIRONMENT

Don't shoot science messengers, they're an endangered species

  • 03 October 2007
There is a paradox about science broadcasting. Surveys going back to the Jurassic will tell you it tops the favourites list of viewers, listeners and readers. They want lashings of medical matters, wildlife unleashed and science unlimited: from Big Bangs to nanotubes. Yet science on air is almost unknown outside a few public broadcasters such as ABC, SBS, BBC and CBC.

Do the commercials not want this source of guaranteed ratings bonanzas? Or is something else going on?

A clue is Channel 7. Recently it brought back Beyond 2000, originally invented by the ABC, and immediately scored big audiences: 1.3 million, fine for Australia. Yet, after only two seasons, it's gone. Why?

The answer is that science journalism, like science itself, requires investment both in time and money. Without research, experience and a critical mass of qualified journalists the show quickly collapses. Public broadcasters, until recently, have been willing to pay the required bills. Now, just at a time when the world faces monumental problems requiring scientific answers, the field is on its knees.

There are two reasons for this.

First, one is attacked personally for having some kind of high profile and for trying to face general questions beyond the detail. Take Robert Winston, professor of medicine and presenter of several TV series. He says, 'It was a serious issue for me. When I started doing television on a big, popular scale, I was completely ostracised by my colleagues and it was really unpleasant. So much so that I was determined to give up doing television. I thought, this is not worth it...'

Some of us are delighted he persevered.

Second, despite what seems like public recognition (I am supposed to be a ‘Living National Treasure' for God's sake!) the reality is slim pickings. I do three programs a week on national radio, 52 weeks a year. What kind of resources might be needed to maintain such an output? Researchers, reporters, locums on stand by? The answer is zero. I have one full-time producer working on The Science Show and part-time producers for the other two shows. The odd freelancer provides an occasional report. That's it!

By ABC Radio standards I'm treated well. Imagine what it's like for my colleagues. So why put up with this? Because, without maintaining the airtime for scientific ideas, these windows too, would close. We have repeatedly warned that veterans such as Norman Swan