Historical event delivers ABSW birthday surprises
75th anniversary celebration, 17 October 2022.
Written by Zoe Beketova, Alison Cooper and Andy Extance
On October 17th, 2022, the Association of British Science Writers revealed many surprising insights into the profession’s past at its 75th anniversary celebration at the Science Museum, in London.
The event was organised as a witness seminar, where both the panellists and the audience could contribute to a discussion exploring the past 75 years of science journalism. Speakers who worked in science media spanning from the 1960s to the present day contributed their experiences. They discussed their motivations and values, the business pressures they faced and any other factors that shaped their journalism experiences. The event also covered the major topics the journalists faced during their lives, including the critical turn covering issues like environmentalism, and digitalisation.
Veteran science reporters from the 1960s opened the day. Judith Hann spoke of her journey the Northern Echo to reporting for Tomorrows’ World. She and documentary producer Louise Panton demonstrated how they stood up to bias to be seen and heard, discovering stories as diverse as flammable sofas, smallpox, the Moog synthesiser, and in vitro fertilisation. ‘I got birth in there among all the gadgets,’ said Panton. She also worked on Tomorrow’s World’s programme about the first moon landing and recalled wondering whether the crew would be incinerated upon returning to Earth’s atmosphere.
While emphasis may have changed, but relevance has endured. The seminal Horizon program, “The Weather Machine” from 1974, produced by Alec Nisbett, suggested we are living towards the end of a period between ice ages. It also asked whether global warming would be enough to hold off the next one, Nisbett recalled. Risk emerged as a topic with concerns over Sizewell power station, recalled former Channel 4 and ITV science editor Lawrence McGinty. The panel’s programs were greatly influential, instigating withdrawal of unsafe medications and reducing audience smoking.
The second panel focussed on how climate and environment were undeniably hot topics in the 1970s and 1980s. Former New Scientist news editor Fred Pearce and former BBC energy and environment analyst Roger Harrabin felt that not being scientifically qualified meant they were unafraid to challenge information from scientists and activists and take an impartial stance. Audience member Martin Redfern, a long-time science producer at the BBC World Service, testified to their struggle to secure a home for such coverage. The impact of rising carbon dioxide was expected to compete with broader environmental issues, only to fall off the agenda in due course.
Along with Wendy Barnaby, who freelanced for everyone from the BBC to Nature, and Martin Ince, author of The Rough Guide to the Earth, Harrabin and Pearce explored how news priorities have changed. In their early careers, they focussed on acid rain, pollution, and concerns about nuclear power. Now coverage homes in on the impact of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperatures. Some stories from the 1970s and 1980s such as sewage on beaches have resurfaced to gain attention today. Unlike the climate itself, the pace of attitude change in the current decade seems frustratingly slow, leaving 'a state of crisis, with the natural world running far faster than we can keep up’ according to Harrabin.
The third session of the event was titled The ‘90s Boom. The panel consisted of Deborah Cohen, editor of the BBC Radio Science Unit from 1990-2021, Tom Wilkie, Independent science editor from 1986-1996, Roger Highfield, science editor of The Telegraph from 1998-2008 and journalist and Tim Radford, who was science editor at The Guardian for 25 years. Here, the discussion circulated around how the speakers entered their careers, as well as key moments of the ‘boom’ of science in the media. Wilkie disagreed with the widely-held view that the Royal Society-commissioned Bodmer report, entitled ‘The Public Understanding of Science’, encouraged growth in science coverage during this period. Instead, he asserted that it was driven by publications seeking to secure revenue from science recruitment advertisements, which in turn followed from the expansion of universities. Deborah Cohen described her own experience when an editor reacted with ‘Gosh, isn’t science interesting’ to a pitch about viewing the world from the outside. Each speaker recalled such points of when science became ‘interesting’ to present.
The final panel talked about digitisation of newsrooms, working during the pandemic and how the roles of press officers and journalists have evolved, alongside the science. ‘The digital era has transformed everything,’ commented Financial Times science editor Clive Cookson. In twenty years of existence, the Science Media Centre has seen an ‘increased appetite for science’, said Fiona Fox, its chief executive. Together with Emily Wilson, editor of New Scientist, and Helen Pearson, former Chief Magazine Editor for the journal Nature, Cookson and Fox discussed how the expansion and sheer volume of science and its coverage in the digital space has created new pressures. Cookson argued, however, that digital journalism is less intense than dealing with print deadlines.
This panel also reflected on the character of modern science journalism. The pandemic showed how science works in detail, with scientists ‘working it out as they went along’. Social media presents both challenges and opportunities. Among so many voices, it’s hard to distinguish fact from opinion. Yet the ease of reaching audiences means it is now considered ‘silly and lazy’ for journalists not to promote their articles on all platforms, according to Wilson. Press officers have an important role in creating content, Fox underlined. Meanwhile, increased multimedia capability has perhaps counterintuitively led to a return to specialisation. Themes of health and environment have withstood the test of time, as has recognition of the ongoing importance of quality writing.
An interesting point raised throughout the discussions was the noticeable improvement in gender equality in science journalism over the years. It was noted by an audience member, ABSW member and science biographer Georgina Ferry, that in the 1970s and 80s she was one of a minority of women working in her team at New Scientist. Today, as reflected by the witness seminar’s audience and the women-filled panel for the session on the 2000s, gender equality within the sciences appears to be progressing. Also, environment writer Fred Pearce, who was news editor at New Scientist when Ferry worked there, pointed to progress at a recent New Scientist Live event, where most participants were young women. This could be seen a positive sign for the future of ambitious young women in science and science writing.
These are just a few of the many interesting topics discussed at the event. The ABSW is now setting up a historical resource including videos from the day. If you want to catch up on what was said, visit the event page, where we are gradually posting the recordings. You can also listen to some key audio extracts on the topic of climate change from the day below.
