That is all.
That is all.
Not too long ago, Martin Robbins of the Lay Scientist blog pointed out an interesting fact about the BBC’s Question Time programme: that since the 2010 general election, there have only been two scientists on the panel. Expected? Unusual? Compare it to 13 comedians over the same period, and 2 appearances by Katie Hopkins, whose only claim to fame is… erm… someone drop me a line in the comments; I have no fucking clue why Katie Hopkins is worthy of people listening to her.
But now, a few months after that, the observation has filtered its way into Points of View.
Though first, a quick jargon buster – UK readers can skip this:
So the question of scientists was brought up on PoV, and the QT producers responded. The executive editor responded thusly (you may be able to catch it on iPlayer, luckily Question Time is the very first thing in the show.):
“Question Time” regularly bids for a number of prominent scientists and guests with a scientific background. However, many scientists do not wish to discuss issues outside their individual field, or express their political views. The nature of the programme also means we do not know which questions we will be discussing in advance so we can never guarantee to scientists that their area of expertise will come up in the programme.
Perhaps they have regularly looked for scientists and the scientists refused. However, I have to doubt that the producer tried very hard, or encouraged scientists, or made it the most accessible format for them. We absolutely have no shortage of public intellectuals in STEM fields willing to vent their spleen on politics. Dawkins has done the BBC’s HardTalk and Newsnight before and is prone to firing his mouth off (I’m not condoning him as an ideal candidate, just that he’s a candidate who clearly is interested in talking outside his field of expertise) and Cox has done a fair share of 10 O’Clock Live performances and causing stirs over Twitter.
Many scientists are very much into their politics and not without good reason. We’re embedded in politics daily, and will forever be stuck with political principles, laws and edicts whether we like them or not.
For a quick instance, the effects Scottish independence on research collaboration between a future independent Scotland and England, and its effect on higher education funding, is a massively complex issue. It’s also potentially devastating, yet something that not all politicians are in a position to discuss in detail… because few even realise it exists as an issue. Yet it is a core issue for those in EaStCHEM, some of whom I had a lengthy discussion with on this very topic a few months ago. As we approach the referendum on the subject, the odds of independence being broached on Question Time will approach certainty – and to not have someone with vested interest in higher education and inter-university collaboration there to put this forward would be just plain negligent towards the BBC’s duty to inform the public.
But why might scientists not, even if offered, choose to accept an invitation to sit on a panel?
Thanks to the general side-lining of their political opinions in the mainstream, scientists are akin to any other minority group – prone to being made uncomfortable and likely to not bother even trying purely because of the dominance and attitude of the majority. Our ability to interact with the political sphere is diminished both by the nature of science (being a all-consuming occupation) and the hostility generally held towards evidence-based approaches by mainstream politics and political media. Such political candidates and political journalists appearing are all ideologically lead, and potential science-based panellists need reassurance that taking an evidence-based approach isn’t going to be shouted down for saying something unpopular. Not that such views are unpopular; there is evidently a strong demand for such people from those at the intersection of science and politics (the BBC even saw fit to respond to it on Points of View, so evidently recognise it as legitimate criticism) and there are evidently scientists who are very politically savvy. Martin Robbins was one of a handful of scientists who assessed each main party for the Guardian in the run-up to the 2010 election and the result was one of the most informative pre-election pieces written.
We need more of a drive to get these experts heard in the mainstream political sphere and to give them the confidence to speak outside their area of expertise if needed. This is something that needs to come from producers who need to start clamouring harder for these people, rather than making half-hearted attempts to reach qualified scientists and then make a far bigger deal out of their celebrity-du-jour.
While the programme might not be able to control the exact questions asked – a format that is a double-edged sword favouring spontaneity and a degree of sincerity over thorough and informed answers – it’s still reasonable to at least predict the topics that might come up. Education is almost a certainty every time. Energy policies and environment can be predicted based on what is in the news that week. Had a natural disaster recently? Climate change will pop up. New policy introduced on higher education funding? Christ-on-a-jetbike that’s a sure thing!
Or you know what? Just fucking risk it.
See what insight they can give thanks to their backgrounds; after all, this is why journalists, authors, comedians, presenters or I-don’t-know-why-you’re-famous-types get invited on. This is what makes the second part of the response given on Points of View so galling: if you can’t guarantee the questions that are asked, then you’re really not getting in panellists because of their specific expertise, but because of the experience their background confers on them. In that case any scientist is going to have just as much to say as any MP. All Question Time panellists, by the nature of the format, are going to be out of their depth.
Perhaps scientists could offer a new evidence-based insight that would otherwise be lost in sea of table-banging rhetoric. Or give an opinion based on being actual university-level educators. So what if you have a chemist on there and nothing chemical gets brought up? So what if there’s an evolutionary biologist on there and they only discuss climate change? They invite Melanie Philips and Peter Hitchens on regularly and “how can you be an obnoxious right-wing twat?” is pretty much never asked.
Just get the scientists on there and let them be heard. We can fill in the details later.
Addendum: I’ve spotted the Change.org petition on this making the rounds on Facebook and whatnot. It’s a nice idea, but now pretty much redundant given the response shown on PoV. Merely asking for it again is, frankly, just petulant. What we need to focus on is a) why the BBC should try harder to attract scientists, and b) suggestions about how this can be brought about.
Don’t get me too wrong on this one. I do use YouTube for watching stuff. And Google’s search is great – because the problem is that most of the time people don’t know what they’re looking for, Google has a vast quantity of data to train itself on so does a better job half the time. But that said…
I tried to get rid of my YouTube account (or channel, what the hell is it these days?) because it was becoming a complete PITA to sign into it without it automatically signing into a completely different user account – requiring to sign out then in again. Two clicks, and a few seconds of refreshing extra, but two clicks and a few seconds of refreshing that I shouldn’t do just to thumbs up something that deserves the feedback.
But THEN, after signing in there was the hassle of giving it my phone number and then an alternate email address, which after a while I got so bored of I just put in random numbers. Then no matter how many times I told it no, (may it thinks “no means yes, yes means anal”…) and declined, and that it wasn’t applicable to me, it kept asking for my real name – even after the sixth time of trying to convince it I was a band.
And of course that was long after they changed how subscriptions worked from a simple “here’s a list of shit you haven’t watched yet” to an endless-pagination Facebook/Twitter style feed (hence why I stopped watching AronRa, dprjones and Thunderf00t long before he turned MRA, and Scott Clifton stopped posting as much years ago thanks to his day job). So the entire enterprise no longer really fit my needs for a quick and easy video hosting service to share a few animations over. So it annoyed the fuck out of me, and didn’t want the username associated with that stuff any more and in an act of sheer “fuck this”, I decided to just nuke the account. No need to maintain it or deal with the fucking spam it generated.
Except it point blank *refused* to delete the account.
Tried every approach. Wouldn’t even let me delete the individual videos, it always produced an error. Multiple computers, multiple browsers, nothing worked. So the only way to rid myself of the YouTube account was to delete the Google Account that I inadvertently ended up syncing with it – i.e., I have a Google Account that I never wanted and never use. Basically, I’m on WordPress, not Blogger, YouTube is dead to me and I actually like outlook.com more than gmail (my brain scan came back normal, so that can’t explain that one) mostly because the way gmail mashes up the order of emails as if they’re threaded conversations which would be fine if it actually made such a thing visually intuitive. Yes, I like a Microsoft product more than a Google one – who’d have thunk it back in ’07.
So, deleted the Google Account.
That actually worked. Lost the YouTube account and now the username no longer brings up results for videos and there’s no more signing in woes. Except deleting the Google Account nearly irrevocably borked my phone because Android fixes you with that account and won’t let you change it without some more advanced tricks involving factory-resetting the thing. Sigh. Already did that once in order to change it over from my university account when that expired following graduation – a further PITA that I don’t want to do again. So after some rapid recovery (of an account I don’t use) I’m still lumbered with an account I don’t use but still need to maintain and check just so I can run a phone and download shit with. Not too bad, apart from the fact I only wanted to get rid of a few fucking videos.
Of course, every university in the universe seems to now be migrating to Google Apps/Accounts/Mail/Drive for its behind-the-scenes work, so now everything I do is signed in via those accounts – which is *totally* awesome because those accounts are by their very nature temporary and can’t be easily migrated to something permanent if you happen to want to keep hold of some things after you move on (because junior academics never move institutions ever…). And I can’t help but think the punchline to this is that I’m going to wake up one day with my name plastered all over Google+ whether I want it there or not and I’m going to be stuck wasting time on things I never planned to use nor have any realistic plans of branching out into.
By the gods old and new Google how you frustrate the fuck out of me…