Certainty and the Public Understanding of Science: Science on Television, By H.M. Collins (Summary by Gina)

Summary Paragraph: Through the discussion of two case studies, Collins explains how television presents science through the lens of certainty, despite the well-known uncertainties involved in so-called science. He concludes, “On TV, science is presented as a generator of certainty, when it is properly conducted. Uncertainties and ambiguities are the result of incompetence of the scientists, or inadequacy of the apparatus, or of the limited tests conducted so far” (Collins, 1987, 709). He suggests that if the public is going to have a “reflective understanding of science,” they need to have exposure to the uncertainties of science. Television is a venue in which to present this information.

Detailed Summary: Collins explains that the main goal of public understanding of science is to have a ‘reflective understanding.’ He suggests that the public should understand the difference between ‘ordinary’ and ‘controversial’ science, as well as ‘pseudo’ science and ‘real’ science. Collins states, “It is a reflective understanding that is needed - a reflective understanding of the way science seems to generate certainty and what this means for its relationship to other kinds of knowledge” (Collins, 1987, 692).

The public needs “reflective understanding” to make important distinctions of science that become part of a public policy debate. As Collins states, “I believe that it is important that the public come to understand the nature of the debates in public science through a more profound grasp of the processes at its heartland” (Collins, 1987, 694).

Collins looks at two case studies on television that show science in debate. He takes a science studies approach, not a media analysis approach. The first case study is the “‘QED’ on the Shroud of Turin.” The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that has an image of a crucified man on it. The scientific debate revolves around whether the cloth is the wrapping cloth of Christ, or alternatively, it is a fake, or rather, a piece of art. During the TV program, Collins says there is an apparent balance of reporting from the producer side, but again, he is more concerned about the presentation of science. Reviewing the scientists’ presentation, he states, “At one point in this film the scientists’ complicity (or, perhaps, desire) to present a clear cut case reaches extraordinary proportions” (Collins, 1987, 701). Conclusions regarding traces of blood were confirmed with the blink of an eye, or so it seemed. Further, and in part because of producing techniques, it took almost no time for the scientists to make these conclusions showing a short clip to conclude blood when in reality it takes much longer. Collins concludes, “Thus, the face of science that is usually presented on television is still more orderly than even in those areas of normal science where debate has been closed” (Collins, 1987, 701).

Collins’ two main points from this first case study include the fact that the TV show demonstrates how uncertain Science is, while it places “pseudo science”, the QED team (the replication of the shroud), at a higher level of confidence. Collins states, “Since the BBC team were not a part of the core-set [that is, part of the formal scientists that study this area], their work was never exposed to the criticism of other members – at least not on film. Their work was the last word – literally” (Collins, 1987, 703). However, he then tells how the show ends with “the next test will be decisive” providing certainty for the audience. The show somehow closes with a certain statement.

His second case study, the shorter of the two, focuses on BCC coverage of the Geneva Event, a search to find new “fundamental particles,” namely W and Z (And they wonder why science communication is difficult? …). The main difference between these two cases is that the Geneva Case was covered in real time, rather than showing clips of science or pseudo science as in the first case. Despite the fact that BBC reporters showed science in real time, in essence the ‘truth’ of science, not hiding or exaggerating uncertainty or certainty, the outcome was still similar to case one. The outcome of case two shows uncertainty, just as with the Shroud of Turin. Collins states:

All this expense, apparatus and brilliance, yet the crucial step still appears to be an expression of confidence by a group of human beings. We can now see that the trouble has come about because the programme team followed the experiment in real time, rather than reconstructing it retrospectively. In doing this they found themselves uncomfortably released from their enchantment by their proximity to the research front ( 1987, 705).

However, as in the first case, the TV Show still ends with certainty concluding that the experiment has succeeded, mind you by succeed they mean they found 5 potential Ws out of 1000 million collisions. Does that sound certain to you?

My view: Although the television programs in this article may conclude with scientific certainty, the TV shows still provide evidence for both sides of the story presenting both the uncertainty of the science, and remaining questions that are left unanswered. Although the show ends in certainty, is the public so malleable that they will disregard all the uncertainties presented earlier in the show? What evidence do we have that suggests that the last word is the only word heard?