Stempra newsletter

Profile of Bob Ward

Bob Ward is leaving the Royal Society for a new job as Director, Global Science Networks at Risk Management Solutions Ltd. His work at the Royal Society has ensured that the UK’s most respected scientists have had their say in the media and in policy decisions on everything from climate change to stem cell biology over the past seven years. So this seemed like a perfect time to hear Bob’s views and reflections on his time at the Royal Society, the way the media portrays science and what the future may hold.

How would you describe your time at the Royal Society?
“ The seven and a half years I spent at the Royal Society were very enjoyable, and I feel privileged to have had the chance to contribute to the work of one of the world's greatest organisations. Indeed I felt a kind of patriotic pride every time I entered the building. It was particularly amazing being involved in the Society's efforts to raise its profile and to increase its interaction with the media. The Royal Society has a very important role to play in the public debate of scientific issues, and I hope it continues to do so no matter how uncomfortable it is being in the firing line.”

What lessons have you learnt from being Head of Communications at the Royal Society?
“ During my last few years at the Society, I was very proud to lead its media relations team. It sometimes felt a lonely job, but I was particularly lucky to have the solid support of successive Presidents and the Executive Secretary, without which I would not have been able to achieve much. Probably the biggest lesson I learned was that perseverance usually pays off if you really believe in what you are doing. But I was also extremely fortunate to have worked with some very talented and dedicated staff in the press office, who also taught me the importance of retaining your sense of humour, even in the most fraught circumstances.”

What role do you think the media has in communicating climate change - and how could they do it better?
“ The media plays a vital role in conveying not just the science of climate change, but also the policy options that we have for tackling it. The past few years have made me certain that the UK has some of the best science journalists in the world, reaching a far wider range of people than their counterparts in other countries, and their record on covering climate change has been, for the most part, excellent. However, their excellence has not always been matched by their editors, and the Telegraph and Mail titles in particular have given rather a lot of space to some breathtakingly ill-informed commentators who have partly undermined the contributions of their talented science specialists.”

Do you think that the scientific community has got better at interacting with the media in recent years?
“ I do think there has been an overall improvement in the quality and quantity of interactions between academic scientists and the media, and Fiona Fox and her team at the Science Media Centre have played a significant role in bringing this about. However, I still feel that rather too many scientists are willing to dismiss the media, which I'm afraid, betrays a more general contempt for the importance of public debate. I think that British scientists are generally less competent media performers than their US counterparts which reflects the comparative lack of emphasis that we put on communication skills during the training of scientists.”

What do you think is the main challenge for science and the media in the next five years?
“ I think the main challenge for the media is to find a way of not falling into the trap of falsely conveying a sense of a divided scientific community on issues where there is a very strong consensus. This is not a call to censor dissenting voices, but that they should be given coverage that reflects the strength of their case (ie their evidence). This can be difficult to determine for a journalist with no background in a subject, which is why editors should rely more on the judgement of their science specialists. As for scientists, they need to make communications skills a priority for the training of all professional scientists. Otherwise debates will become more dominated by the eloquent but partisan voices of special interest groups and lobbyists who frequently misrepresent the scientific evidence to promote their ideologies.”

What do you feel that press officers could be doing better/the main challenges for press officers communicating science to the journalists?
“ I think press officers will continue to occupy that claustrophobic gap between the proverbial rock and hard place. I think, with some notable exceptions, that the professionalism of public relations in science is not as high as it should be. Stempra should be leading the charge towards higher standards both in the practice and ethics of science PR.”

Do you think that science has a good profile in the media?
“ Science has a great profile in the UK media, thanks to the work of our outstanding science journalists. However, scientists are still living a charmed life and are not exposed to much scrutiny of their motives and personal opinions. I think more scientists will find themselves under investigation by the media, which should be welcomed because it will help to weed out bad behaviour and will signify the wider recognition of the important roles that scientists occupy. Alas I fear most scientists will regard it as an unwarranted intrusion, without recognising that the media should be holding scientists to account in the same way as they do doctors, judges or any other professionals.”

Claire Bithell
Science Media Centre

<< Back to
current newsletter