Science Media Centre

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
Science Media Centre logo circa 2013

The Science Media Centre (SMC), based in London, UK calls itself 'an independent venture working to promote the voices, stories and views of the scientific community to the national news media when science is in the headlines.'[1]

The SMC was originally housed within the Royal Institution (RI). According to the Trustees' Report for the Charity Commission, year ended 31 March 2012, 'The SMC was originally set up in April 2002 as a division of the Royal Institution of Great Britain (RIGB)... and its financial structure was that of a restricted fund maintained by the RIGB. The RIGB acted as a very successful 'midwife', seeing the SMC grow from two to seven employees, and its funding, via donations, increase from approximately £200,000 to £460,000, in less than nine years.'[2]

Susan Greenfield, the RI's former director, described herself as the 'midwife'[3] of the initiative. According to the Financial Times Greenfield was 'one of the main organisers of the initiative, together with Lord Sainsbury, the science minister... Lord Bragg, the broadcaster, is chairing an advisory board.[4]

In 2011 the SMC became independent of the RI and set itself up as a charity and company limited by guarantee.[5]

The UK SMC has spawned a number of sister SMCs in other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan.[6] A US version the Science Media Center of the United States is under development.[7]


Contents

Controversy and criticism

Within months of its launch the SMC was already embroiled in controversy over its activities. On the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods, it stood accused of operating 'a sort of Mandelsonian rapid rebuttal unit',[8] and of employing 'some of the clumsiest spin techniques of New Labour'.[9]

These claims arose out of allegations of a 'secret campaign to discredit' a BBC drama relating to GM crops.[10] The connections of the director of the SMC to the Living Marxism network, and the SMC's funding, have also attracted critical comment. The SMC provides a link from its home page to the Progress Educational Trust as a "source of information about assisted conception and genetics", a body which has made Fiona Fox an adviser and has other links to the LM network through current and former staff.[11]

Dr David Miller of the Stirling Media Research Institute is amongst the SMC's critics. He is quoted in an article in The Guardian as saying:

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is... not as independent as it appears. It was set up to provide accurate, independent scientific information for the media but its views are largely in line with government scientific policy. The SMC made much of its charitable status, yet its charity number is the same as that for the Royal Institution (RI); in other words, it is almost synonymous with the RI. Similarly, its independence was supposed to be guaranteed by the fact that no more than 5% of its funding comes from any one source; yet 70% of its funding comes from business, which could be said to have similar interests. The SMC has since had the ac.uk removed from its email address after complaints that only academic institutions that were not corporately funded were entitled to this were upheld.[12]

In a critique of the SMC in Nature journal, the science policy journalist Colin Macilwain said the SMC "offers the media a clearing house for scientific briefings and packaged quotes from scientists" and commented on plans to set up a Science Media Centre in the US:

The London SMC's narrow approach to risk assessment — if you want to hear about the risks of nuclear power, say, just ask your local nuclear engineer (see Nature 471, 549; 2011) — sits happily with the prevalent ethos of British journalism. This was, of course, immortalized by the otherwise-obscure poet Humbert Wolfe: “You cannot hope / to bribe or twist, / thank God! the / British journalist. / But, seeing what / the man will do / unbribed, there's / no occasion to.”[13]

Macilwain goes on to question whether the SMC is even needed in the UK, given that

the British press — led by the BBC, which treats the Confederation of British Industry with the deference the Vatican gets in Rome — is overwhelmingly conservative and pro-business in its outlook. It is quite unperturbed by the fact that SMC sponsors include AstraZeneca, BP, Coca-Cola, L'Oreal, Monsanto, Syngenta (as well as Nature Publishing Group) but not a single environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) or trade union.[14]

Genetic modification

The SMC describes itself as 'working to promote the voices, stories and views of the scientific community to the news media when science is in the headlines' (emphasis added). It also says it's in the business of 'pro-actively promoting a spectrum of scientific opinion ' (emphasis added).

This language is derived from a Consultation Report on its role, published by the SMC in March 2002 and said to have been the result of wide consultation with leading scientists, science communicators and the media. The topic of GM comes up repeatedly - almost 20 times in a report which in full only runs to around 30 pages including appendices.[15]

Revealingly, the report notes that 'the majority of people consulted - including many of those who helped establish the initiative... reminded the SMC team several times that the impetus for the initiative came from people who are concerned about improving the image of science and renewing public trust in it. They also pointed out that the impetus for the Centre emerged from a strong consensus that media coverage of such issues as GM and BSE had been "bad for science".'[16]

In a Financial Times article published a full 15 months earlier, the emphasis is similar, the role being planned for the Centre would be to help 'sceptical and impatient journalists' get their stories right on controversial issues such as 'animal research, cloning and genetically modified food'[17]

In an article co-authored by Greenfield in The Independent, we are also given a clear account of the motivation behind the Centre:

The reduction of a complex branch of biological engineering to "Frankenstein food" was typical of media hopelessly ill equipped to discuss scientific progress rationally. And into the vacuum stepped big business. What inflicted the greatest damage on GM science was that the case for the defence was fronted by the bio-tech groups Monsanto and AstraZeneca.[18]

If this suggests the SMC's role is to replace the biotech industry as the champions of GM, then the SMC's Consultation Report contains a more reassuring quote from Greenfield:

The SMC is unashamedly pro-science but it is also independent of any particular agenda. That means the SMC will provide access to the wide spectrum of scientific opinion on any one issue. We can provide an anti-GM scientist and a pro-GM scientist...[19]

This chimes in precisely with the SMC's promotion of itself as being 'free of any particular agenda within science' and and as striving 'to promote a breadth of scientific opinion - especially where there are clear divisions within science' (emphasis added).

Yet the SMC has never provided the views of anything remotely resembling an anti-GM or even a GM-sceptical scientist in any of its press releases on GM stories, which are typically made up of a list of quotes from what appear to be a range of scientists - but which are all supportive of GM. By contrast it has been happy to host the press launch of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) - the public relations campaign for GM foods set up by the biotechnology industry. Similarly, it regularly included comments from Stephen Smith, when he was the head of the ABC and of the biotech company Syngenta Seeds UK, along with those of other 'scientists' in its GM-related press releases. The comments it includes in these are invariably supportive of GM or are critical of research raising questions about GM, and some of the comments come from scientists with significant but undeclared conflicts of interest. For example, in more than one of its press releases those who are part of industry-funded lobby groups, like the scientists who work with CropGen, are presented as simply a 'Reader in Ecology' or a 'Visiting Professor of Biology' without any mention of their lobby-group affiliations. By contrast, in the SMC's Consultation Report the SMC not only does not hesitate to identify one of these scientists as 'Professor Vivian Moses, Chair of CropGen', but only identifies him as such.[20]

Greenfield, when the director of the Royal Institution, was on the Advisory Board of the mostly industry-funded Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC). Together with the SIRC, Greenfield, on behalf of the RI, co-convened a Forum which laid down guidelines for the media - guidelines which had largely originated with the Royal Society - and which called for the establishment of a secret directory of 'expert contacts' with whom journalists should check out their science stories prior to publication.

The Science Media Centre was to be a new body 'less encumbered by past perceptions' - almost certainly an admission that the Royal Society's reputation had been damaged by allegations of its operating a media rebuttal unit in relation to the issue of GM foods. Sense About Science appears to have been set up for similar reasons. Like the Science Media Centre, the director of Sense About Science was also drawn from the Living Marxism network. Interestingly, in the SMC's Consultation Report the Chairman of Sense About Science, Lord Dick Taverne, was among those who 'argued that the SMC should try to identify spokespeople who could display the same levels of passion and conviction as the campaigning NGOs.'[21]

Human genetics and reproductive technologies

In 2006 the UK Government published a paper detailing proposals for revision of the law on assisted reproduction and embryo research, including proposing the setup of a new body, the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (RATE), which would replace existing regulatory bodies (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and the Human Tissue Authority).[22]

The Science Media Centre coordinated a response from selected scientists to the proposed revisions of the law on assisted reproduction and embryo research. The responses show a trend of criticising plans to restrict human reproductive technologies. For example, Dr Allan Pacey, British Fertility Society (BFS) Secretary, said, "There is a sense that the Government has been quite conservative and has missed an opportunity to be more radical and forward thinking. As we now work to a very high standards of clinical governance, there’s a good case for regulations being less strict than they were when the laws were first drafted."[23]

Lord Robert Winston, Emeritus Professor Of Fertility Studies at Imperial College London (Hammersmith Hospital), said, "It is highly disappointing that the thinking in the Department of Health is so impoverished that they could not see the need to reduce the regulation of routine IVF, which is no longer an experimental procedure and should not be subject to additional regulation."[24] In fact there are serious and well-recognised dangers attached to IVF treatment.[25]

Dr Stephen Minger, Director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, Kings College London, objected to the ban on non-human (animal) egg cells for human cloning: “Whilst I am happy to see that the Review continues to support the use of donated embryos for stem cell derivation, I am very disappointed that the Government’s position is to ban the use of non-human oocytes [immature egg cells] for the derivation of cloned human embryonic stem cell lines."[26]

James Lawford Davies, a solicitor specialising in reproductive and genetic technology at Bevan Brittan LLP in London who subsequently became a partner in the London-based law firm Lawford Davies Denoon, disagreed with the Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes: "The proposals do little to move forward from the status quo. The HFEA has indicated it could licence the creation of hybrids for research purposes under the existing law, and the Science and Technology Committee said that the law should only be amended to explicitly allow such research. In contrast, the government is suggesting this should be banned – presumably to avoid headlines."[27]

In 2007 the government decided not to go ahead with RATE after all.[28]

Are the SMC experts representing the popular or informed view? Not according to the NGO Human Genetics Alert, which says, "Although food crops, bacteria and animals have been genetically engineered for the last 20 years, there has been a worldwide consensus, embodied in legislation in over 60 countries, that we should not attempt to do the same with human beings. This is because crossing this line would lead inevitably to a future of ‘designer babies’ and a new consumer-driven eugenics."[29]

Human Genetics Alert says the UK is the weak link in the otherwise fairly unified stand against human genetic engineering by governments in Europe: "In Europe, nearly all countries except Britain have signed the Council of Europe Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights, which prohibits the alteration of the human germ line by any methods. It is extremely unusual for governments around the world to create outright bans on specific scientific techniques, and this underlines the seriousness of the reasons against allowing genetic modification. Any decision to cross this line is a matter for the whole of global society, and it is inconceivable that the UK should be allowed to make this decision on behalf of the rest of humanity."[30]

Communicating risk to the public

The SMC published a leaflet, "Communicating Risk in a Soundbite", in circa 2002. It calls the leaflet:

a guide for scientists, doctors and engineers preparing for a broadcast interview, and is the result of a meeting between top scientists and journalists in July 2002. They assessed the best ways to explain risks via the broadcast media, and suggested a whole host of examples. It is not meant to be a definitive 'best practice' guide - we simply want to offer a choice of effective ways of answering questions about safety and risk.
Note that the guide is intended for use in situations where risks are perceived to be much higher than they actually are. It is not intended to help cover up significant risks or threats to public health.[31]

Members of the public who read the advice given in the guide may well find it alarming as it actually seems to be about minimising risk in the eyes of the media and thence the public. Examples of possible questions and ideal answers include the following:

Q Is it risky?
A ‘Not very. The benefits outweigh the risks.’ The interviewer then has little choice but to ask you about the benefits.
A ‘It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe.’
A ‘To most people, safe doesn’t mean ‘no risk’, it means ‘negligible risk’ – so I believe that this is safe.’
A ‘Whether or not something is safe will always be a matter of weighing up the risks and the benefits – no-one has ever proved that something is safe.’
A ‘Nothing is completely risk free – but we can assess all the evidence and decide that something is safe enough.’
Q Will investment make it safer?
A ‘If we plough money into reducing these tiny risks, then for every one person it benefits 1000’s of others may suffer because the money has had to be diverted from somewhere else.’[32]

The guide appears anti-scientific in its advice to avoid admitting a lack of knowledge about risks:

Don’t say, ‘These risks are unquantifiable’ or ‘unknown’.
Try, ‘It’s difficult to say, because ...’, or, ‘At the moment it’s not absolutely clear, but we’re trying to find out by doing X, Y and Z.’[33]

Participants in the meeting that gave rise to the guide include people who have developed a reputation for reassuring the public about risky, controversial, or unpopular technologies such as MMR vaccinations and genetically modified food. They include:[34] Prof Sir Colin Berry | Pallab Ghosh | Dr Evan Harris

People

Board (2002-2012)/Advisory Committee (2012 - )[35]
Name of Board Member Stated occupation From To
Current members[36]
Kenny CampbellEditor, Metro2004current
Philip CampbellEditor-in-Chief, Nature2003current
Clive CooksonScience Editor, Financial Times2002current
Carolan DavidgeDirector of Press & PR, Cancer Research UK2005current
Paul DraysonEntrepreneur and ex-Science Minister2005
2012
2006
current
Louise DunnVice President Communications, GlaxoSmithKline2012current
Robin Lovell-BadgeHead of Developmental Genetics, MRC National Institute for Medical Research2007current
Rebecca MorelleScience and Nature reporter, BBC News Online2007current
Simon PearsonNight Editor, The Times2004current
Simon SinghScience writer and broadcaster2002current
Bob WardPolicy and Communications Director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science2007current
Past members[37]
Melvyn BraggBroadcaster, Peer and Controller of Arts at LWT20022002
David CopeDirector of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology20022003
Peter CotgreaveDirector of Public Affairs, Royal Society20022011
Marshall DaviesEx-President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society20122012
Alex DenoonPartner, Lawford Davies Denoon20122012
Mike GranattPartner, Luther Pendragon and former Director General of Goverment Information and Communication Service20042011
Philip GreenishChief Executive, Royal Academy of Engineering20092012
Tristram HuntHistorian, TV presenter and former advisor to Lord David Sainsbury20022005
Paul MartinScience writer and former Director of Communications at Cabinet Office20022003
Tom MillerDirector of Communications, Imperial College London and STEMPRA committee member20022012
Helen MunnExecutive Director, the Academy of Medical Sciences20122012
Vivienne ParryWriter, broadcaster and tabloid journalist20022012
Trevor PhillipsDeputy Chair, Greater London Authority20022004
Paul RoutledgeChief political correspondent on the Daily Mirror and former news editor on Observer20022003
Andrew StoneHouse of Lords20022003
Ceri ThomasEditor, Today, BBC Radio 420092012
Adrian Van KlaverenDeputy Director, BBC News20022008
Alan WinterHead of Operations - Royal Institution20022008

Staff

Staff 2012 -

  • Fiona Fox, Chief Executive. Fox, who was originally appointed founding Director, is said to be in overall charge of running the Centre and setting its strategic direction together with the SMC's Board. Fox's background, which includes undisclosed links to the Living Marxism network (which eulogises technologies like human cloning and genetic engineering), is mainly in media relations. In 2012 Fox was described on the SMC website as chief executive of the SMC.[38]
  • Helen Jamison, Deputy Director
  • Tom Sheldon, Senior Press Officer
  • Edward Sykes, Head of Mental Health and Neuroscience
  • Selina Hawkins, Office and Finance Manager
  • Fiona Lethbridge, Press Officer
  • Robin Bisson, Science Information Officer
  • Jo Thomas, Events Assistant

Former staff

Claire Bithell | Lyndal Byford | Will Greenacre | Simon Levey | Amy Lothian | Nancy Mendoza | Joseph Milton | Becky Morelle | Mark Peplow | Becky Purvis | Jonathan Webb

Trustees-Directors 2011 -

The SMC was registered as a charity on 18 March 2011 and as a company in the same month. As a result a group of six trustees (of the charity) and directors (of the company) were appointed with a seventh being appointed later. The trustees now formally ran the SMC but this was not announced on the SMC website - according to the holdings of the Internet Archive - until after 26 February 2012.[39]

The seven were:[40][41]

Board 2002-2012 / Advisory Committee 2012 -

In 2002 the SMC appointed a board to run the organisation along with a 'scientific advisory board'. In 2012 when it became a Charity/Company a new smaller 'board' of Trustees/Directors was constituted, the scientific advisory panel discontinued and a new advisory group constituted including significant numbers of the previous 'board'.

From the beginning the SMC board was made up of a mix of journalists and science communicators. Among the journalists and broadcasters have been a significant number of BBC employees (including Rebecca Morelle, a former employee of the SMC), Ceri Thomas, editor of Radio Four's Today programme, Adrian Van-Klaveren former Controller of Radio Five Live and Jonathan Baker head of the BBC College of Journalism); and broadsheet journalists (Clive Cookson).

Members of the board have often had connections with funders of the SMC (given in brackets) such as:

Some members of the board (and now the Advisory Committee) are themselves funders of the SMC. Paul Drayson funded the SMC through his company Powderject in 2002 and 2003. In 2005 and 2006 he was a member of the board of the SMC and his Drayson Foundation donated £12,500 to the SMC in 2007. In 2007 and again in 2008-10 he was minister for Science in the New Labour administration. In 2011 the Drayson Foundation donated some £50,000 to the SMC. In the following year, 2012, Drayson was again involved with the SMC as a member of the Advisory Committee. Some have been close to other funders such as Tristram Hunt described on the SMC site as a former adviser of David Sainsbury who helped to raise the funding for the SMC back in 2001/2[50] and was later a funder of the SMC through his charity vehicle the Gatsby Charitable Foundation (2009-2013).

Among the science communicators or science policy actors are public relations professionals from GlaxoSmithKline.

Scientific Advisory Panel 2002-2012

From 2002-2012 the SMC had a 'Scientific advisory panel'. It was abolished when the SMC was separated organisationally from the Royal Institution. In registering as a company and a charity the SMC appointed a number of Trustees/Directors, which replaced its Board and then created a new Advisory Board which was made up of a number of figures from its previous board but none from its Scientific advisory panel. The panel was notable for the concentration of members from Oxford and two London colleges. Of the sixteen members there were five from Oxford, five from University College London and two from Imperial College. The Science advisors served from 2002 to 2012 with the exception of Richard Sykes who joined in 2003.

Scientific Advisory Panel (2002-2012)[51]
Name of Panel Member Stated occupation
George Alberti Department of Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Newcastle
Peter Atkins Department of Chemistry, University of Oxford
Mike Brady Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford
Richard Catlow Director of the Davy Faraday Research Laboratory and Department of Chemistry, University College, London
Susan Greenfield Director of The Royal Institution of Great Britain and of Pharmacology, University of Oxford
Julian Hunt Department of Space and Climate Physics, University College, London
Brian Johnson Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge
Steve Jones Department of Biology, University College, London
David King Chief Scientific Advisor to H. M. Government; Head of the Office of Science and Technology
John Krebs Food Standards Agency and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
Chris Leaver Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford
Chris Llewellyn-Smith Former Provost and President of University College, London, and former Director General of CERN
Bill McGuire Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College, London
Richard Sykes Rector of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Simon Wessely Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London
Robert Winston Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, and Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust

Funding

For a full compilation of data on funding derived from the SMC website see Science Media Centre - Funding.

Corporate donations

Despite its close links with the RI, the SMC describes itself as 'an independent venture'.[52] Prior to its launch, Greenfield said she hoped to get money for the project 'from the trade unions' [53] but that never materialised and much of the SMC's funding is via corporate donations. Funders with biotech interests include AstraZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto[54], Pfizer, PowderJect, and Syngenta.

The centre states that it is "independent from any single scientific body. To preserve our independence, funding has been sought from a wide variety of sources, none of which have contributed more than 5% of the total running costs (£250,000 per year). Media groups, industry, professional associations and individuals are all taking part in funding the Science Media Centre. "[55]

August 2013

Funders up to August 2013 are:[56]

August 2012

Funders up to August 2012 were:[57]

Articles/emails about the SMC

Articles

Email debate about the Science Media Centre

The emails are arranged chronologically to aid comprehension.

Contact details

Address: 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE
Website: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
Tel: +44 (0)20 7611 8300
E-mail: smc [AT] sciencemediacentre.org
Twitter: @SMC_London

Notes

  1. Science Media Centre, Welcome, acc 22 Sept 2012
  2. Charity Commission (2012), Science Media Centre Trustees' Report and Accounts for period ended 31 March 2012, acc 3 Oct 2012
  3. Consultation Report, Science Media Centre, March 2002, p. 13, accessed 28 Sept 2009
  4. Clive Cookson, New independent media centre aims to give scientists a voice, Financial Times, Jan 30, 2001, acc 3 Oct 2012
  5. Charity Commission (2012), Science Media Centre Trustees' Report and Accounts for period ended 31 March 2012, acc 3 Oct 2012
  6. Science Media Centre (2012) International SMCs, acc 28 Nov 2012
  7. Science Media Center SMC-US, accessed 20 August 2013
  8. Ronan Bennett, The conspiracy to undermine the truth about our GM drama, The Guardian, 2 Jun 2002, acc 14 Feb 2013
  9. Alan Rusbridger, Fields of ire, The Guardian, 7 Jun 2002, acc 14 Feb 2013
  10. Lobby group 'led GM thriller critics', The Observer, June 2, 2002, acc 14 Feb 2013
  11. Home page, Science Media Centre acc 13 Mar 2011
  12. John Crace, Peer trouble, The Guardian, February 11, 2003, accessed 29 Sept 2009
  13. Colin Macilwain, Two nations divided by a common purpose, Nature 483(7389). 14 Mar. Accessed 19 Sept 2012
  14. Colin Macilwain, Two nations divided by a common purpose, Nature 483(7389). 14 Mar. Accessed 19 Sept 2012
  15. Consultation Report, Science Media Centre, March 2002, acc 26 Nov 2012
  16. Consultation Report, Science Media Centre, March 2002, acc 26 Nov 2012
  17. Clive Cookson, New independent media centre aims to give scientists a voice, Financial Times, Jan 30, 2001, acc 14 Feb 2013
  18. Tristram Hunt, Susan Greenfield, THE APPLIANCE OF SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS FEEL THAT JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. A NEW MEDIA CENTRE COULD BRING THE TWO CAMPS TOGETHER, The Independent (London), November 20, 2001, acc 14 Feb 2013
  19. Science Media Centre, Consultation report, March 2002
  20. Science Media Centre, Consultation report, March 2002, p27
  21. Science Media Centre, Consultation report, March 2002
  22. Human Tissue Authority (2012) Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos, acc 27 Nov 2012
  23. Science Media Centre (2006) Scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Dec 13, acc 28 Nov 2012
  24. Science Media Centre (2006) Scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Dec 13, acc 28 Nov 2012
  25. Jacqueline Mroz, High Doses of Hormones Faulted in Fertility Care, New York Times, 16 Jul 2012, acc 27 Nov 2012
  26. Science Media Centre (2006) Scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Dec 13, acc 28 Nov 2012
  27. Science Media Centre (2006), scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012
  28. Human Tissue Authority (2012) Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos, acc 27 Nov 2012
  29. Human Genetics Alert (2012), Human Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep: The threat of ‘mitochondrial replacement’ techniques, November
  30. Human Genetics Alert (2012), Human Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep: The threat of ‘mitochondrial replacement’ techniques, November
  31. Communicating Risk in a Soundbite, Science Media Centre, 2002(?), acc 2 May 2010
  32. Communicating Risk in a Soundbite, Science Media Centre, 2002(?), acc 2 May 2010
  33. Communicating Risk in a Soundbite, Science Media Centre, 2002(?), acc 2 May 2010
  34. Communicating Risk in a Soundbite, Science Media Centre, 2002(?), acc 2 May 2010
  35. Data from Internet Archive holdings of the Science Media Centre website, 2002-2013
  36. Data from Internet Archive holdings of the Science Media Centre website, 2002-2013
  37. Data from Internet Archive holdings of the Science Media Centre website, 2002-2013
  38. SMC (2012) Staff, acc 26 Nov 2012
  39. Science Media Centre SMC board, Retrieved from the Internet Archive of 26 February 2012 on 15 August 2013.
  40. Charity Commission (2012), Science Media Centre Trustees' Report and Accounts for period ended 31 March 2012, acc 3 Oct 2012
  41. Companies House (2012) Current Appointments Report for: Science Media Centre, created 23/11/2012, obtained from Companies House 23 Nov 2012
  42. Royal Society (2012) Dr Peter Cotgreave, acc 26 Nov 2012
  43. Science Media Centre (2012) About us, acc 3 Oct 2012
  44. Science Media Centre (2012) About us, acc 3 Oct 2012
  45. Lawford Davies Denoon (2012) Alexander Denoon, acc 3 Oct 2012
  46. LinkedIn, Alexander Denoon, acc 3 Oct 2012
  47. Science and Technology Facilities Council (2012) STFC Council members - Mr Marshall Davies, acc 3 Oct 2012
  48. STFC (2012) About, acc 26 Nov 2012
  49. Data from Companies House
  50. Science Media Centre consultation Report March 2002, p. 24
  51. Data from Internet Archive holdings of the Science Media Centre website, 2002-2013
  52. Science Media Centre, Welcome, acc 22 Sept 2012
  53. Financial Times, Jan 30, 2001
  54. SMC, About us, Web Archive 26.02.1012, accessed 16.09.2013.
  55. Funding, SMC website, accessed 20 September 2012
  56. SMC, Funding, accessed 29.09.2013.
  57. SMC, Funding, accessed 28.11.2012.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools