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

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more