Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Campaigns and Coalitions: Governance by Media

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 28))

Abstract

This chapter examines three versions of the origin story of the Science Media Centre in the context of the origin story of the Public Understanding of Science field in the UK. In doing so, it suggests that the SMC’s account of its foundation and practice contain inherent contradictions which may lead to the undermining of its mission to restore public trust in science. The chapter further suggests that some of the SMC’s exemplary case studies rely on the convergence of a number of particularly media-oriented scientific communities or projects including embryologists and scientists working on the human genome project. It suggests that the “unashamedly pro-science” line of the Science Media Centre risks alienating public trust in both science and the media.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed Walter Bodmer, although taking issue with some of the critiques cited in this chapter, has recently reflected on a quarter century of Public Understanding of Science work in the UK (Bodmer 2010).

  2. 2.

    This chapter emerges from research conducted between 2004 and 2010, at the ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen) on media representations of genomics, particularly at the intersection of genomics and assisted reproductive technologies. The research began with the assembly of an archive of UK press news coverage of genetic science in 2004. This time period including a number of news events relating to embryo research to which the SMC co-ordinated media responses. This initial intensive sampling has been supplemented by purposive sampling of subsequent key news events in the area, including those associated with the Hwang scandal and those related to the reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (Haran 2007; Haran and Kitzinger 2009).

  3. 3.

    The Third Report is sometimes known briefly as “Science and Society”, but for clarity in this chapter I will refer to is as The Third Report.

  4. 4.

    The Committee for the Public Understanding of Science, formed on the recommendation of the Bodmer Report, had representation from each of the three bodies of the Royal Society, the BA (now known as the British Science Association), and the Royal Institution, thanks in part to the then President of the Royal Society, George Porter who was also – uniquely – President of the BA and Director of the RI. (See Bodmer 2010 for one account of the formation of COPUS).

  5. 5.

    Bodmer (2010) points out that the funding of PUS research through the UK Research Councils was actually one of the recommendations of his 1985 Report.

  6. 6.

    The acronym is sometimes rendered as CoPUS (see, e.g., Miller 2001) and sometimes COPUS (see, e.g., Bodmer 2010).

  7. 7.

    Miller uses the acronym BAAS for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, although it was generally known – somewhat confusingly – as the BA. The organisation was relaunched in January 2009 as the British Science Association.

  8. 8.

    Report downloaded from http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/consultation.htm 19/09/05 Now available at http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/publications/last accessed on 30 November 2010.

  9. 9.

    In the January 2007 blog, Fox seems to indicate that the first briefing occurred in January 2006, but her presentation at the Genomics Forum event in March 2009 states that the background briefing on “Chimeras” took place in August 2005, while the background briefing in January 2006 was represented as the SMC’s response “to the media’s requests for a background briefing about the impact of the [Hwang] crisis on cloning research” (http://www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/forum/publications/egneventreportsvideospresentations/title,8496,en.html).

  10. 10.

    See http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/09-105_hybrid_research_funding.htm.

References

  • Bodmer, W. (2010). Public understanding of science: The BA, the Royal Society and COPUS. Notes & Records of The Royal Society. Published online July 14, 2010, doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2010.0035 (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, S. (2007). Should we allow the creation of embryos which are animal-human hybrids? The big question. Independent, January 10, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, S. (2009a). Funding halted for stem cell research. Independent, 13 January 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, S. (2009b). Vital embryo research driven out of Britain. Independent, 5 October 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, F. (2007). Stem cell scientists seize the media agenda on human animal embryos. On Science and the Media. Blog entry. http://fionafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/stem-cell-scientists-seize-media-agenda.html (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • Fox, F. (2009a). Slide presentation at Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A retrospective, 12 March, 2009. http://www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/forum/publications/egneventreportsvideospresentations/title,8496,en.html (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • Fox, F. (2009b). Science communications and ethics – Trying to get it right: The science media centre – A case study. In B. Nerlich et al. (eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. (2009). Moral objections to hybrid embryo research claims rejected. Blog entry on The Great Beyond at Nature.com. January 14 2009. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/01/moral_objections_to_hybrid_emb.htm (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • Haran, J. (2007). Managing the boundaries between maverick cloners and mainstream scientists: The life cycle of a news event in a contested field. New Genetics and Society, 26(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haran, J. and J. Kitzinger (2009). Modest witnessing and managing the boundaries between science and the media: A case study of breakthrough and scandal. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haran, J., et al. (2008). Human cloning in the media: From science fiction to science practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (1984). Primatology is politics by other means. PSA: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 489–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M. (2007). Ministers have been spooked by “frankenbunny” headlines. The Times, January 5, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • HFEA (2007). HFEA statement on its decision regarding hybrid embryos, 5 September 2007, available at http://www.hfea.gov.uk/455.html (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000). Third Report of Session 1999–2000 Science in Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jha, A. (2007). Luddites and moralists: A ban on the use of hybrid embryos will be the consequence of ill conceived pressure. The Guardian, January 11, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, M. (2012). Between a rock and a hard place: The deficit model, the diffusion model and publics in STS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. (1997). The embryo research debate: Science and the politics of reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, T. (2009). A workbench view of science and communication. In B. Nerlich et al. (eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Media Centre (2002). Consultation Report. March 2002. Available at: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/uploadDir/536adminconsultation_report.pdf (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • Science Media Centre (SMC) (2009). Expert reaction to Independent story on funding of hybrid research, 5 October 2009. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/09-10-05_hybrid_research_funding.htm (last accessed on 30 November 2010).

  • The Royal Society (1985). The public understanding of science. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group Endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. and S. Clifford (2009). Mapping the field: Specialist science news journalism in the UK national media. Research Report. The Risk, Science and the Media Research Group, Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., et al. (2009). UK National Newspaper coverage of hybrid embryos: Source strategies and struggles. Research Report. The Risk, Science and the Media Research Group, Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. This work is part of the Research Programme of the ESRC Genomics Network at Cesagen (ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University,  ,  

    Joan Haran

Authors
  1. Joan Haran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Haran .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bielefeld, Germany

    Simone Rödder

  2. , Bielefeld University, Institute for Science and Technology Stu, Universitätsstr. 25, Bielefeld, 33501, Germany

    Martina Franzen

  3. Bielefeld, 33501, Germany

    Peter Weingart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haran, J. (2012). Campaigns and Coalitions: Governance by Media. In: Rödder, S., Franzen, M., Weingart, P. (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation