http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html

By Paul Revoir


The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of
bias notably in its treatment of climate change.

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of
its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has
been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made
phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held
belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

The investigation will also focus on coverage of issues like genetically modified foods, the MMR
vaccine and the way it reports on new technologies.
It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific findings on areas which affect 'public
policy' and are 'matters of political controversy'.

A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the
issues featured in its news and factual output.

The corporation's Royal Charter and Agreement requires that the BBC covers controversial subjects
with due impartiality.

The new report will not just include the natural sciences but also aspects of technology, medicine
and the environment that include scientific findings or claims.

Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the governing body's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC),
said: 'Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction
and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
'Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine
reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while
remaining impartial.

'The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also
important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that
licence fee payers expect.'

The review will be launched in the spring and the findings of the probe will be published in 2011.

The BBC is planning to raise the profile of science this year with a focus on the genre across
television, radio and online.

But there has been a string of rows in recent years over the way it has handled a number of
scientific issues.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented
by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a 'potty
peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming'.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC's stance on climate change.


Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'. His comments were backed
up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than
giving them 'information'.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes
dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on
green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of
programming to the Live Earth concerts.

The BBC has also been taken to task over the perception its coverage of genetically modified food
has been too negative

The BBC then decided to scrap the Comic Relief-style TV event on climate change amid fears it would
make it look biased.

In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues. It was accused by an
adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically modified crops with factual errors and bad
science.


The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna Friel, had ignored his
advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.

More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to have broken editorial
guidelines in a programme about the potential health hazards of wi-fi.


The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme 'gave a misleading impression
of the state of scientific opinion on the issue'.

In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme which they claimed
attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine.

Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now 'effectively BBC policy'
to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as
raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is
settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says
it isn't.'



Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0brPFXRNB