A slot for science

Science is too important and the scientific process too complex to leave to the "tyranny" of the network news sound bite, contends a small California-based group trying to generate support for an entire television network devoted to unadulterated science. Modeling their proposed science channel on the nonprofit Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN), the group is seeking seed money from investor angels or foundations to move forward with the idea whose time, they believe, has come. "We now have more than 100 channels on cable, so it seems that to me there ought to be one of them devoted to some serious scientific discussion," said Terry Sejnowski, head of the Salk Institute's Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, who is serving as advisory board chair for the fledgling "Cable Science Network" (CSN) initiative. Sejnowski makes a case for the network in the August 1 issue of Science, citing stem cell research as just one example of topics for which public discussion and policymaking require in-depth information, and current science coverage is inadequate: "The importance of timely scientific information was apparent in the debates in the United States last year on stem cell research: Speeches were given, positions taken, and decisions made based on simplistic and sensational interpretations of the underlying biology. The press failed to provide the scientific background, and the scientific community failed to provide forums to clarify the different types of stem cell research and the consequences of restricting research options."CSN is the brainchild of evolutionary neuroscientist Roger Bingham, a researcher at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Center for Brain and Cognition and an award–winning documentary producer. Bingham and his wife Linda, a fan of both science and C-SPAN, have put together a brief position paper describing the possible content of a 24-hour-a-day television network that would provide the kind of access to in-depth science information and discussion that C-SPAN's three channels collectively provide for politics.Bingham envisions offering a mix of high-end documentary material, such as the "NOVA" series and a revival of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," with lectures, both historic and current, and talk shows. But the network would also carry a C-SPAN-esque assortment of unedited content, such as live speeches, debates, and congressional hearings. Bruce V. Lewenstein, a professor of science communication at Cornell University and editor of the journal Public Understanding of Science, wonders how much of an audience there would be for such a channel. "Live science isn't very interesting," he said, and Bingham's CSN proposal "has its heart in the right place, but it doesn't seem to recognize or speak to some of the constraints for reaching the broad public with science information."The National Science Foundation's latest annual survey of public attitudes toward science found that only 8% of respondents watch "NOVA" regularly, whereas 90% watch television news at least a few times a week. Even legislators are getting science information from TV news shows, according to the report, which noted that a "60 Minutes" segment on human cloning was shown at the start of a March 2001 House of Representatives subcommittee hearing on the topic.Lewenstein fears there might not be much of an appetite for the undigested science discussion that Bingham sees as a key element in the CSN mix. "This is why I'm a little bit surprised that someone who's a very experienced television producer would be talking about putting out something raw and think that it's going to have appeal. That's the piece I'm curious about," Lewenstein said.Bingham, who has produced acclaimed PBS series including "Frontiers of the Mind" and "The Human Quest," acknowledges that lovingly crafted documentaries represent one extreme in science communication and can be highly effective. "But I also know how much stuff I left on the floor. I regretted a lot of the material that didn't make it onto the air," he said. "And it's important to have a network that's free of the tyranny of the sound bite."Sejnowski notes that he has friends who are "C-SPAN junkies" precisely because of the channels' unscripted drama. "They just put it on in the background and it's kind of like a soap opera… I think it's really transformed public perception of what happens in Washington… what it is that people actually do to make policy," he said. "So I think one of the goals of CSN could be just to let the public know how science is done… having scientists debate the issues and having the process of science exposed to the public." At present, only NASA TV broadcasts a near-constant stream of educational programming and live transmissions from space missions. And several organizations, such as the UK-based Vega Science Trust and the Current Science and Technology Center in Boston, produce TV-ready lectures and discussions of timely science topics for broadcast by other television networks and on the Internet.But none of these sources rival the 24-hour reach of C-SPAN, which is funded by the cable television industry as a public service and is available to 85 million US households, with an estimated weekly audience of 28 million. Why C-SPAN itself doesn't offer science-related programming when public policy or legislation is at stake is a mystery to Sejnowski. He suspects the network's producers simply don't have the expertise to find the right sources, and he and Bingham would be happy to help. Bingham says he has had initial talks with C-SPAN and other "nonprofit providers" about developing some programming that could be a "training wheels" stage in building the CSN network. For example, he'd love to see a monthly installment of C-SPAN's "Booknotes" program devoted to interviews with authors of science books.Working with a small private grant, Bingham is circulating his position paper and putting together an advisory board. So far, Sejnowski and his wife Beatrice Golomb, a UCSD researcher, have signed on, as have V.S. Ramachandran; E.C. Krupp, director of the Griffith Observatory; John Allman of the California Institute of Technology; Ann Druyan of Cosmos Studios; Paul MacReady of AeroVironment; and Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine. But as yet, "there isn't any angel who finds this to be their life calling, where they want to make their imprint," Sejnowski said. "There are a lot of very wealthy individuals right now who are looking around and who are young enough so they can get involved. This would be the perfect project for them."

A slot for science

Weather, sports, and animals have their own cable television channels. Why not 24-hour science?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of