12
Thursday 19th November 2020 | PALATINATE
Science & Technology
“Not cheerleading for science”
A conversation with Dr Robert Sternberg Durham alumnus Dr Robert Sternberg designed the MSc Science Media Production at Imperial College, London. He also teaches the MSc Science Communication, as well as making his own documentaries. Faye Saulsbury speaks to him about documentary-making, the anti-science zeitgeist, and maverick marine biologists. Faye Saulsbury Science & Technology Co-Editor A good documentary In 1998, after a career making educational films, Dr Sternberg joined the Science Communication Unit at Imperial. Just three years after that, he created the MSc Science Media Production. I ask him what makes a good documentary. “Your main responsibility is to tell a gripping story,” he says. “And to know how to make it gripping, you need to know your audience. The facts will be the same regardless, but it’s up to you to choose how to deploy them.” He cautions against being “swept away by enthusiasm.” “The scientific process is not logical. We all have prejudices that affect the decisions we take, even when we are trying to be objective and logical. Scientists are no different. It’s important to depict the scientific process as accurately as possible.”
The facts are the same regardless; it’s up to you to choose how to deploy them
“But you can’t bewilder people, either,” he adds. This difficult balance between portraying the disagreements, U-turns and dead ends inherent to the production of science and creating a gripping storyline is what makes documentarymaking such “a nuanced form of journalism”. According to Sternberg, it is also why “you can’t make films about really new science, because really new science is controversial. Producers like the BBC are scared of that.”
Maverick marine biologists It turns out, however, that the science explored in Dr Sternberg’s most recent documentary is both quite new, and quite controversial. It examines the work of the late Don Williamson. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Sternberg describes Williamson
as a “maverick marine biologist with outlandish ideas about evolution.” Williamson believed that breeding between different animal phyla occurs on a regular basis, and his work was met with a lot of anger and resistance. Williamson’s research was finally published after gaining the support of Lynn Margulis. Margulis was an evolutionary biologist known for her endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic cell development. Although she ultimately came to be seen as quite the maverick herself, her influence was farreaching. This, says Sternberg, highlights how nepotistic the scientific community is. “Everyone knows everyone, and editors and publishers already have preconceived views on your work.” No journal wants to be the first to publish controversial views, but with a bit of encouragement from a respected name, they might just change their mind. By the time Dr Sternberg met him, Williamson was in his late 80s and wasn’t carrying out his own research. Sternberg made him a deal: he would continue Williamson’s work in the lab, and in return, Williamson would allow him to film it.
A seat of learning Being in research settings has made Sternberg wonder if he should have gone into research himself. “My undergraduate degree at Durham was in zoology and botany – we didn’t have biology in those days. I remember going out to spoil heaps and doing botanical examinations. I had a fantastic time. Durham University was, at the time, doing a lot of work to clean up pollution caused by mining.” Although he has not been back to Durham recently, it is clear his memories of his time here are fond. “Durham is an historical seat of learning. The science was excellent. I loved the town; I loved how you could walk everywhere. I think I even took some photographs for Palatinate. And in 1981, my first year, the
River Wear froze!” But scandalous rent prices, it seems, were as aggravating then as they are now. “Over the duration of my degree, rent increased from £7 per week to £11 per week. We were outraged!” He chuckles. Some things never change. But while he valued his academic studies at Durham, Sternberg eventually chose television after graduating. “As a journalist, I sometimes feel like a parasite. I’m in the room watching, but I’m not creating the knowledge.” Still, Sternberg doesn’t regret his career path. He stresses that “there is a great need for writers and communicators with a scientific background. There are so many scientists now, we need their work to be communicated accurately.”
There is a great need for writers with a scientific background
Reflecting on the scientific process And where better for students with a scientific background to learn than at Imperial? I first heard about the course from an editor at The Lancet, who told me that if I was interested in science communication, Imperial was the place to go. I ask Dr Sternberg what makes Imperial’s course so outstanding. I am surprised when he gives much credit to the students. “A lot of students who come to do the MSc Science C o m m u n i c a t i o n have r e s e a r c h backgrounds – a lot of them have PhDs. But they feel
disenfranchised with the world of research. It’s hard to get funding, and it’s hard to be paid a decent salary. They want to stay attached to science, but they don’t want to continue with research.” He goes on: “although the MSc Science Communication at Imperial is a practical degree, it is not just about learning how to use the technology. Any broadcasting job can teach you that. The course, fundamentally, is about reflecting upon the scientific process, and learning how to represent it. It is about understanding the social impact of science.” When I ask what he thinks about the recent politicisation of science, Sternberg corrects me. “The political debates surrounding climate change and Covid-19 are not novel.” “There have always been sceptics of science. Which ideas get promoted, funded and published – that’s political. The politicisation of science is not new.” That’s why presenting science in a clear, accurate way is so important. Aside from documentarymaking, museum curation, and charity work, Dr Sternberg says, “many Science Communication graduates go on to work in policy – parliament, The Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society. There is
resistance to empirical evidence in policymaking and law.”
Advice for applicants So, what advice can Sternberg give to students applying for MSc Science Communication? “More than anything, you need to prove interest in communication – student newspapers, photography, videos, podcasts. It’s so easy to do any of these things on your phone, there’s no excuse to not include them. It doesn’t have to be about science.”
As a journalist, I sometimes feel like a parasite
I joke that he must see a lot of David Attenborough references; he interrupts. “Don’t mention David Attenborough! Everyone’s watched David Attenborough. Saying you watched David Attenborough when you were a kid is not evidence of your interest!” This leads him to a more serious conclusion. “Science communication is not cheerleading for science,” says Sternberg. “You have to be able and willing to see it how it is. If you idealise science and present it in an unrealistic fashion, you’re in danger of feeding the antiscience zeitgeist.”
