Stempra newsletter

FEATURE: When good PR becomes bad science, it's a stunt too far

Scientists who fear to venture out into the media and science communication in general are sometimes depicted as stuffy old ivory tower-dwellers who just don't know how to let their hair down. But do they have good reason to feel this way? I think that a small but visible proportion of the science PR stunts that get into the news are definitely hitting the cheeky-to-outrageous range and perhaps queering the pitch for the rest of us.

Now let's be clear what I'm about to rant against - I've nothing against a good ol' duck in an echo chamber or Jonathan Edwards on custard. Events such as these are creative, witty and draw the punters in to find out about some real science. My worry is when a piece of PR froth devised by the press or publicity office gets reported as the real science in the story.

There's nothing for it - I'm going to have to name at least one name at this point - so here goes! My personal least-favourite science PR stunt is the RSPB Splat-o-meter - which asked the public to fix a small piece of white card onto their car and then drive around the country before counting the poor dead squished insects. Participants would be helping to discover how our insect populations were faring and get to take part in a real scientific experiment. Great! Except that:

There was no baseline - it was only done for one year - so how can you tell if numbers are going up or down?
Numbers of squishes found is only partly influenced by insect numbers, but could also reflect insect activity, time of day, speed of driving, model of car, type of roads…
People have been sampling insects all over the country for many years in a scientific and non-destructive way so this data was not only useless but not needed.

The Splat-o-meter succeeded in gaining national press coverage and you could argue that it raised awareness of both the RSPB and the importance of insects to the food chain. However, in order to do this, it misinformed, sending out incorrect information on how science is done as well as about the state of our knowledge on insect populations, not to mention leading people to waste time on a totally useless activity. Sorry RSPB, I'm sure you're not the worst offenders, but as an ex-entomologist this really bugged me (terrible pun intended). Another example I'm unhappy about is a PR team carrying out their own "survey" with a low sample size and no social scientist in sight - to get a result they could use to publicise their event. Formulas for the perfect cup of tea or the happiest life can be annoying too (scientists have come up with these, have they? And how have they validated these models?) although I find these pretty harmless, as they're usually understood to be tongue-in-cheek.

The only reason such stories get in the news is because they come from organisations with scientific clout and so carry an air of scientific validity. Now, to be fair, the people who should be exerting the quality control here is not us PR-ers, but the senior management of the organisations involved. They ought to be ensuring that their scientific reputation is being used appropriately by the press office. However, it seems that, in some cases at least, this just isn't happening.

Nervous scientists considering whether to dip their toe into media waters undoubtedly get put off by seeing such stories in the press. So perhaps there is an incentive here for us PR practitioners to exert a bit of self regulation. I suggest one simple rule; check your press release - if an experiment or a result in there is depicted as serious science it should have originated from scientists and not the PR team.

Elspeth Bartlet
Stempra committee
and External Communications Manager, The Cnap Artemisia Research Project, University Of York

<< Back to
current newsletter