Scoop and be damned

Both journals and journalism are well served by the embargo system. Newspaper offices receive advance copies of major journals, and/or press releases highlighting key papers, embargoed so that their contents cannot be disclosed before publication day. Journalists then have time to write stories to appear simultaneously. No-one has an unfair advantage. And journals gain more publicity than they would receive without embargoes. But should this same procedure also apply when scientists are giving popular talks to public audiences? The question emerged, acrimoniously, during the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual science festival, held this year in Leeds. The event had hardly begun before the Daily Telegraph was attacking a preview of the meeting published by the Guardian the previous week. Then, in an angry exchange of letters in the Guardian on 11 September, Roger Highfield and colleagues on the Daily Telegraph accused the rival paper of breaking six embargoes in “a cheap stunt.” Such behaviour would lead to “chaos” and “a new low in science coverage.” In response, the Guardian’s Bill O’Neill asserted that Highfield et al. were “professionally jealous” and that “pomposity and self-righteousness” lay behind their “mistaken claim.” Both sides may live to regret such imprudent language. Yet the issue really does matter — not least to the British Association (BA) itself, whose principal impact on the world is through the media attention it receives. Oddly, news editors believe that the BA’s annual meeting is the sole occasion in the calendar when their science correspondents can find a rich harvest of breakthroughs. Extra column inches are provided, and science receives prolific exposure accordingly. This year was no exception, with an impressive acreage of coverage. Reflecting their differing readerships, the Daily Star gave us “Rex ate at shakeaway” (the dinosaur that shook its live victims to pieces), while the Financial Times focused on “Glaxo chief urges better funding for research.” The mid-market papers went to town over George Sik’s advocacy of psychological profiling for footballers. The Daily Mail explained “Why a shrink should pick the England team,” while the Express exclaimed “So that’s why Gareth fluffed it.”