The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters' majestic premises will play host to an exciting and innovative debate on science journalism on 28 March 2006.

Non-scientists, and therefore journalists, are fascinated by scientific stories, but often these stories are presented in a vacuum. And while there is an increasing amount of popularisation of scientific facts in the media, what actually goes on in the lab remains underexposed. As science becomes more political, governments, corporations, activists, universities and the scientists themselves become more concerned to make sure their science is presented in the ‘right way’. Journalists are used to resisting this pressure in general news reporting, but science sometimes short-circuits these defence mechanisms. However, to balance this increase in spin there is a growing movement of grassroots public engagement, with non-scientists taking a more informed and empowered approach to understanding and influencing how science really works. This one day workshop will invite scientists, journalists, activists and non-experts to look at the role of journalism in particular in the presentation of scientific controversies, comparing trends in Norway and UK.

9:30 Welcome and introductions:
Reidun Sirevåg, Secretary General, The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Simon Giverin, Director, British Council Norway
Daniel Glaser, Imaging Neuroscientist, UCL (facilitator)

10:00 Illustrated talk, David Buckland, Cape Farewell
Where do we draw the lines between activism, journalism, scientific enquiry and artistic endeavour? The old model of scientists and artists sealed in their separate, professional bubbles with disinterested media reporting on their breakthroughs to an eager public has past. Cape Farewell is a novel approach which uses the power of commissioned science, beautiful images and top-class writing to keep climate change and its effect on the Antarctic in the news. David Buckland is an internationally-renowned artist, a passionate sailor, and producer of the acclaimed BBC documentary, Art from the Arctic, about a highly original expedition to Spitzbergen.

10:30 Science in broadcast news, Pallab Ghosh, BBC
With science increasingly forming part of the political agenda, science journalism can no longer be equated with popularisation. Today’s correspondents must interact with attempts to influence the news from governments, corporations and even scientists. Especially in broadcast, where actuality and striking images are key, journalists have to resist a variety of pressures to maintain their objectivity and get the real story across. As BBC science correspondent and former Chair of the Association of British Science Writers, Pallab Ghosh has been “trying to get science journalists to be journalists again.”

11:00 Morning coffee

11:30 Consensual science coverage, Erik Tunstad, forskning.no
The Scandinavian Consensus political model is much discussed as a theoretical as well as practical mode of collective decision-making, but does this approach extend to the practice of science, how scientists interact in groups, and how science is presented to non-scientists? Can this approach make the public more engaged in the process of science or is there still a gulf between the knowledge-makers and the public? Erik Tunstad is editor of leading popular science website in Norway, forskning.no

12:00 Morning speakers’ panel discussion: Images, activists, journalism and consensus

12:30 Lunch

14:00 Trust me, I’m a scientist! Daniel Glaser, UCL
If scientists can no longer rely on the unqualified trust of the public, what special status can they have in society? Increasingly, public engagement with science has moved on from evocative dissemination of scientific facts. Movements like Cafe Scientifique have put the relationships between scientists and others at the forefront of democratic innovation. Can science lead other areas of culture and civil society into more effective relationships between experts and non-experts? Daniel Glaser is a neurobiologist from University College London and is the presenter of a BBC television series on how science really works, Under Laboratory Conditions.

14:30 A Short History of Scientific Fraud, Ole Didrik Lærum, Gade Institute
To paraphrase Karl Popper, science is about getting things wrong in interesting ways. Sometimes errors are random, sometimes wishful thinking, and sometimes deliberate. Systematic deliberate errors can further be divided into those driven by personal motives, and those generated to serve corporate goals. Some claim that this last category is an increasing feature of modern medical science, but, for obvious reasons, little objective data exists. How are these errors communicated to the public, and how do they effect the good guys? Professor Lærum is President of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

14:55 Case study (Sudbø), Ole M. Sejersted, Ullevål University Hospital
In January 2006, it was admitted that a 2005 Lancet paper by Jon Sudbø from the Radium Hospital contained fraudulent data. The apparent scale of the fraud was surprisingly large, and the investigation is due to report at the beginning of April. This case raised a lot of concerns about fraud in science in general. What lessons can be learned? Do we need more control or can fraud in science be prevented by other means? Prof. Sejersted is the Dean of Research at Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo.

15:10 Afternoon tea

15:30 Presenting controversy, Tim Radford
Disagreement between scientists is the route by which science advances. But popular science journalism often finds it difficult to represent these differences without recourse to scare-stories and persecuted mavericks. Sometimes governments try to suggest that scientific evidence is unequivocal; in other cases political groups try to manufacture controversy for their own ends. How can journalists navigate this terrain while still conveying the excitement of scientific discovery? By no means a narrow science journalist, Tim Radford’s professional interests include literature, natural history, theatre and film. He was science editor at the UK Guardian until last year and was previously Science Writer of the Year.

16:00 Afternoon speakers’ panel discussion: Should fraud and controversy undermine public trust in science?

16:30 Thanks and end

18:00 Cafe Scientifique at Posto Bar, C.J.Hambross Plass 2A, Oslo.
Trust me I am a scientist, Daniel Glaser with Ole Sejersted
With the Sudbø scandal attracting a considerable amount of press recently, Dr. Daniel Glaser, an imaging neuroscientist from University College London provides a view of what really goes on behind the white the coat and asks what lies ahead for scientists if they no longer can rely on the unqualified trust of the public. Contributions from Prof. Ole Sejersted about the Sudbø case opens the debate up to the audience about what can be done to stop such large-scale scientific fraud from happening again.