Skip to main content

Fiona Fox - Five way interview

Fiona Fox became the founding director of the Science Media Centre in 2001. She has won several awards for her achievements, including an OBE for her services to science in 2014. In 2023 she was elected an honorary member of the Royal Society and holds honorary fellowships from a range of scientific bodies. She writes regular for science publications and national newspapers. Her recent book is Beyond the Hype.

Why science communication?

We have a placard in our office saying ‘if it’s not open it’s not science’. I honestly believe that. The remarkable efforts of scientists to better understand the natural world and human health and find solutions to the biggest problems we face are as nothing if we fail to communicate these to the wider public and policy makers.  Prof Sarah Gilbert, the inventor of the Oxford/AZ vaccine,  hated the media spotlight but understood at some deep level that she needed to communicate directly with the public to ensure that people trusted the vaccine enough to take it.

Why this book?

I’m a news junkie and have read almost every memoir written by journalists and spin doctors like Jeremy Paxman and Alastair Campbell. But they are always about political news.  I feel like the big controversies about science are just as exciting and important as big political crises, but no one has written a science spin doctor's diary. We nearly called it that but I don’t like the word spin so decided against.  I also wanted to write a book to mark the 20th anniversary of the SMC – a unique media relations operation which is being replicated all around the world. And finally I wanted to critique the kind of corporate PR that is on the rise where senior communications officers put the reputation and brand of their organisation before the public interest in the truth.

Despite the SMC being there, we still get plenty of exaggerated or misleading headlines - I know journalists want a splash, but is there anything that can be done about this?

There is not much we can do to stop the day-to-day drive to some level of exaggeration and sensationalism in news rooms.  ‘Twas ever thus.  But we absolutely can do things to limit that and the SMC does - every day.  Sending journalists third party comments on newsworthy new findings which emphasise the caveats and limitations and challenge hype are our bread and butter.  That the news media like these and use the comments in their articles should reassure us that journalists do want to make sure their reports are measured and accurate.  On the whole I am very positive about this. If the news media didn’t care they would simply ignore us. Also don’t assume that the exaggeration always comes from journalists.  We see some horrible examples of scientists and press officers exaggerating their findings, which is less forgivable.  Things like the Press Office labelling system we designed is an anti-hype device for press officers and authors which is making a difference.

What’s next?

More of the same but in different ways. The media has changed in almost every way since we started in 2002 so the core remit stays the same – to improve the quality of science in the news. But we do that by adapting to the changing nature of news.  At the moment we are talking to news organisations about how we help them to drive good science journalism onto social media channels. Also more battles ahead I imagine.  Sadly we see more and more scientists prevented from speaking openly to the media by controlling government communications people or risk averse press officers who urge scientists to stay away from topical controversies.  We need to fight these trends. If you want to see me seething suggest to me that scientists engaging with the news media on topical controversies are ‘fanning the flames’. They are not – they are sharing good quality accurate information with the public when it is most needed.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

The reason I love this job is that loads of things are exciting me.  We know that babies have been born as a result of the new mitochondrial DNA transfer technique (known as babies with 3 parents) so we are waiting for the scientific paper that tells us whether that worked and whether these babies are free from mitochondrial disease.  I also lead here on genome editing in crops and am excited to see what that will allow us to do in terms of getting to Net Zero whilst feeding the world.  I’m also running a one year pilot of an SMC in Ireland.  My parents were from Ireland and my husband is Irish so I’d love to see an SMC there. I’m also loving working with new-ish SMCs in Germany, Spain and Taiwan.  We’re also hoping to have our next global SMCs meeting in Australia in 2025 to coincide the 20th anniversary of the Aus SMC.  It’s so exciting to see that something I set up - that many predicted would never take off - has become a global network making a real difference to science in the media.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more