Tag Archives: Journalism

“A Volcano… in Somerset”

One thing I hate about some science articles in magazines and newspapers is where a whole article is expanded to a huge length in order to basically say “No”. The problem of course being that questions like “Was Darwin Wrong?” are the ones that get the readers in, not statements like “Darwin proven right, again”. This all being said I’m about to do exactly this myself, for which I apologise in advance.

So you may be wondering what the deuce the title of this article is referring to, well in short it’s all about this newspaper story from This Is Somerset: ‘We could be sitting on a Mendip volcano’ says Somerset expert.

The article is almost a year old, but it’s so bad I can’t let it get away with itself.

So according to the gentleman quoted in the article, he believes that if oil and gas companies are to be allowed to begin Fracking operations in the Mendip hills, it may re-activate an extinct volcano whose vent is situated at Moon’s Hill Quarry, near Stoke St Michael. I’m not going to attack the man for being wrong, he’s a non-specialist policy maker trying to protect his community from a harmful industry. I’m not going to attack the journalist for sensationalism because to use a tired metaphor – “sex sells”. Though we know not who the journalist is – quite telling in my opinion – the article has no actual person attached to it so we may never know.

What I will attack is the fact that our mystery journalist has thrown caution to the wind and not actually asked an expert – a geologist, volcanologist, or even the good folks at the Somerset Earth Science Centre (actually AT Moon’s Hill) – for clarification of whether or not there is a risk at all.

Now I’m no volcanologist, I’m a newly minted geologist far more interested in fossils and sediments than the very-hot-gooey-stuff that comes out of the ground; yet I can still explain why this article is nothing more than silly scaremongering. The volcanic plug at Moon’s Hill is very, very old, and a quick search online will bring you to websites explaining the geology of the place, at least one of which even gives you the geological setting for the now extinct volcano – it was a subduction zone volcano. This is a vital piece of information and one completely missing from the article in question.

Why is it vital I hear you whisper ever so quietly? Because there is no subducting margin anywhere near the Mendip hills any more… the nearest being in the Mediterranean sea. So I ask you… where is this huge accumulation of molten rock supposed to come from? It certainly hasn’t been hanging around unfed and unheated since the Silurian period some 425 million years ago, it would have cooled and hardened into a very, very solid rock by now.

Added to which, the rocks of this region have been shifted monumentally since the plug was emplaced. By what mechanism could such a huge quantity of molten rock so close to the surface as to be disturbed by Fracking; be kept from exploding or seeping out during the folding and faulting that produced the Mendips in the first place? If there is one, I haven’t come across it yet.

And finally, you might be thinking to yourself that the hot spring at Bath is mentioned in the article, if there’s no magma down there, how does it get heated up? An excellent question but one with a clean cut answer. Anywhere you dig on the planet, as you get deeper the ground gets warmer, by a whole 25 degrees centigrade per kilometre (77 degrees Farenheit) – even without a huge mass of molten magma near the surface. As the waters at Bath are a mere 46 degrees centigrade, that’s not a long distance the water would have to sink through the earth’s crust to attain that temperature and then rise back to the surface.

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to attend a science writing master class in London, and one of the biggest things that was stressed was that in science writing you have to produce something that will grab the interest of the reader, and also be right. Sadly while this article does the former, it is manifestly wrong, and all the more so for not asking the right questions of anyone who could have answered them.

Ben Brooks


Science for Journalists 101: Cardinal Sins

Science is one of those topics which is (interestingly) one of the most popular and interesting topics to the general public, this has been reflected by the introduction of “science”, “environment” “tech” and “health” sections in most national news outlets; from The Guardian to the BBC, and from the much maligned Fox News Network to the New York Times.

However as eloquently explained by Bora Zivkovic (community manager at SciAm blogs) in his christmas extravaganza blog post, even after the return of a conversational vibe with the internet, everything is to play for with respect to science journalism. We’re emerging from a dark age into a new enlightenment; one that will require a re-defining of the role of journalist.

What can be said about modern science journalism is that some do it very well, and others very, very badly (hence the bad reputation of Fox News on climate science, and the BBC’s false objectivity). Here are two articles, one from my local student newspaper’s science section and one from the BBC to illustrate the point:



I’m not going to say which is good and which is bad, but hopefully by the end of this article you will have some idea of what I think, the question is whether you agree*.

So what should the budding science journalist be avoiding like the plague? There are a great deal of things that you could and should be careful with, but sometimes flirting with them can produce a better article than if you don’t… so what are the cardinal sins?

Misrepresenting the Literature
This is cardinal sin number one; the scientific consensus represents humanity’s best guess at the answer to a set of problems and it is as close to the “truth” as we can get given the data available.  The literature might well say lots of different things, but you can be almost certain that there will be one “general direction” in which the current of scientific thought is flowing. If the paper you are reporting disagrees then say so; but in science reporting context is King… without it you are no better than the man who stands around with the “The End is Nigh” sign… a dark age apothecary or dare I say it; The Daily Mail.

A classic example of this misrepresentation is the infamous case of MMR and Autism, where even today anti-vaccine groups are touting the findings of two pieces of research, both by one man, who was paid by biased legal interests to fix his results. For over 20 years the current of scienctific literature has flowed against his findings, saying there is no link between MMR and Autism, but repeatedly it gets reported as undisputed fact.

Another is the Climate Change denier’s claim that “in the 70’s science said we were entering an ice-age”. In fact, global warming has been on the table since the 50’s. It’s always been there, with a small number of papers in the 70’s indeed arguing for an ice-age with different data, but this blip disappeared with more data, and now science has crystalised around global warming and anthropogenic climate change.

70's cooling papers review

Graphic from 2008 scientific review of past literature regarding the "1970's ice age prediction" (Peterson, 2008)

It is quite rare that something comes along and causes a paradigm shift, causing science to literally be turned on its head. It is even rarer that this happens with one piece of research or a single piece of thought. Remember this, not everything will change the world tonight, most things will do it slowly, over time, and with help from the rest!

Quote/Data mining
Thid is another BIG one, and it is fairly similar to misrepresenting the literature, don’t say the data shows something when it doesn’t, that is a bare-faced lie. Equally don’t say “temperatures cooled between 1995 and 1996 so global warming is false” if in the ten years preceding 1995 and post-dating 1996 show increases in average temperatures, that is worse than lying outright, because you are taking someone elses hard work and misrepresenting it. Where an outright lie is often easily checked and spotted, data mining gives someone a tangible focus and can give the lie a credibility it doesn’t deserve.

Similarly do not use a quote from someone that has been cut to agree with your agenda.

i.e.: if scientist A says:

“some say there’s probably no life in the universe, but we think they’re wrong and we think we know where to look”

DO NOT write :

“”No life in the universe” -said scientist A”

False Objectivity
The scientific method calls for objectivity (or a lack of bias), as a scientist you have to try and avoid influencing the result of your experiments, when you publish a scientific paper you are forced by many publishers to declare any biases. After all if a paper about how good or bad smoking is for you is funded by a tobacco company, it may be less reliable than one that is funded by the public purse (taxation).

This can go too far though when it comes to journalism, where every view is given equal weight because the news outlet doesn’t want to offend anyone or get sued, this is often the case with BBC reporting in science. If you are afraid of getting sued because you present the scientific truth, perhaps you should consider reporting something other than science. Science doesn’t care about bias and false objectivity, it states the facts and presents the current consensus, however uncomfortable it may be for some people to hear.

Politics, Opinion and False Motive
Science doesn’t care how uncomfortable the facts are, but equally it remains unbiased when it tells them. If you are against homeopathy; science is on your side, but that doesn’t necessarily make practitioners of homeopathy liars or theives. Similarly if you are against climate change; science is against you, but that doesn’t make science a “left-wing-conspiracy” and doesn’t make the scientists liars and conspirators. Political opinion should remain squarely in the politics section, that’s why your news outlet has one, assigning false motives is something for the lawyers and reporting crimes, not science.

This emphatically does NOT mean you cannot have or express an opinion. You just have to be very, very careful about how you go about it, phrases like “I think” or “in the reporters opinion” exist for exactly that purpose, but beware the reader may disagree, possibly vehemently.

Statistics are hard, in my opinion they’re probably the hardest thing anyone has to get their head around when it comes to doing or reporting science. Benjamin Disraeli once said “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” He was right. If used correctly and chosen well a statistic can be the easiest way to convey something complex or nuanced. If chosen badly or misunderstood, muddying the waters and misrepresentation is inevitable.

Do you really know what “statistically significant” or what a “high p-value” is and what it means? If not then look it up, check what you’re going to say and if still in doubt, ask someone who knows how they work. Remember that there is never such a thing as a stupid question!

And Finally…

Hopefully this has all made sense to you, and as always I welcome any coments, criticisms and suggestions for rewording and things I need to add. I look forward to reading a lot of awesome quality science journalism in the future, not that I wouldn’t have done if I hadn’t published this!

Ben Brooks

Short-Link for this post: http://wp.me/pFUij-9d

*N.B: I think the dud article is the BBC one, further explanation at the blog “looking out to sea”.


Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M., and Fleck, J., 2008,“The myth of the 1970’s global cooling scientific consensus”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, DOI:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Zivkovic, B., 2010, Observations: The line between science and journalism is getting blurry….again, Scientific American, [ONLINE] Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-line-between-science-and-journa-2010-12-20