[LeeE]

I have to wonder how you two got interested in science in the first place if you seem to be so negative about efforts to get other people interested in it.  Perhaps you both had really inspiring teachers, or someone like that, but then that argument would lead to the conclusion that the only valid route to becoming interested in science is if you have such an inspiration; no other route is worth following.

I'm honestly a bit disappointed in you both because you both seem to be criticising something just because it isn't perfect or ideal.

[chris]

I agree with Dave and SC, but not for complete the same reasons. The problem I have with it is that Richard Hammond enables the BBC to say that they are investing heavily in "science". And because they've got that box ticked that means there's less motivation, and fewer resources, to invest in higher quality programmes with higher aspirations.

It's fine to have a few fun programmes like that, but not to set the standard by them.

What needs to happen is that we get some BBC producers and commissioners with science degrees rather than arts degrees. Then we might get somewhere.

Science is viewed with huge scepticism by media producers, who don't understand it themselves (not surprising because many of them have no qualifications in the subject) so they think it's a) boring b) baffling and c) incapable of being pulled off without a "celebrity" attached to it to make it saleable.

In rare circumstances where a producer or editor does come from a scientific background the emphasis is totally different.

Chris

[paul.fr]

Having only watched two episodes of Brainiac my impression is that it does not set itself out to be an educational programme, it is strictly a whiz, bang pop programme. (In the episodes i have seen) they do not attempt to give scientific explanations of their antics, just "WOW, lets see that again"

It is good at what it does, captivate an audience that like watching explosions and silly youtube stuff. It is not good at being a science education programme because it is not set out to be one.

But it could be used as an educational programme if teachers would ask their students about the episodes they are discussing, and then use that as a base to teach the whys and hows.

Edit:
Isn't it a Sky programme and not a BBC one?

[Make it Lady (OP)]

I posted this because I think there is a definite lack of science programmes for children on television now. We used to have HOW and HOW 2. Adam Hart-Davis was also pretty damned good too. These were both produced by a guy called Jonathan Sanders. He is now working for Planet-scicast which is an internet site for teachers. He can't get work on TV because the money isn't forthcoming. I like the whizz Bang programmes as much as any other entertainment program and would like to think that this would be a good introduction to science but once the child gets into school they are bored witless by science teachers that lack experience. The new science curriculum has gone some way to address the problem of lack of practical led lessons but it went so far that it removed most of the theory. Previously it had been theory heavy. Lots of science teachers are not confident enough to run a practical based curriculum as they are poorly trained. The lack of good science teachers also means that none scientists are often put in front of science classes.
Primary teachers are expected to teach science to a higher level than ever before without any science training.
When I last taught I was told off for over exciting the children in my classes so that they didn't want to sit and copy off the board in the following class. I think school could learn a lot from populist science and populist TV should be a little more responsive to informing their audience.   

[LeeE]

I think you all have to ask who you are really criticising here?  Is it the producers of the shows, who put on something that enough people will want to watch to justify the cost, or the majority of people who don't understand strict science and who wouldn't watch strict science programmes because they can't or won't put in the necessary effort to understand them?  In fact, why aren't you criticising the media in general, which has a lamentable record regarding accuracy right across the board?

The real issue is that the media, in all it's forms, tries to provide what it thinks people want for entertainment, and in view of it's popularity, it is getting it more right than wrong.  If there's a problem anywhere it is with people in general, who don't want to have to work at their entertainment, perhaps because they've just come home from working all day.

In the end, it really comes down to criticising other people for not wanting to do what we enjoy doing, and who has a right to say what other people should enjoy?

[DrN]

TV should be to inform and entertain - we've got the entertainment, so where's the information? I agree with one of the earlier comments, Tomorrow's world was brilliant. I also remember Johnny Ball being fantastic when I was young. I used to watch all these types of programmes with my dad, and I really think that's what got me interested in science. And I mean proper science. I don't think Brainiac would have had the same effect - sure, it's entertaining, and it's based on science, but it doesn't really inspire or encourage people to find out more about anything.

I've been to a couple of events at the Dana centre (at the Science Museum in London), and they really are fantastic - often the most interesting nuggets are the applications of fairly mundane scientific discoveries, and learning about how the most off-the-wall types of research can impact significantly on our lives. The one that stands out the most was the 'smell' session a couple of years ago, where we discovered just how many applications an 'electronic nose' may have - including the potential for sniffing out cancer cells. This is how science should be presented on our TVs!

[daveshorts]

The real issue is that the media, in all it's forms, tries to provide what it thinks people want for entertainment, and in view of it's popularity, it is getting it more right than wrong.  If there's a problem anywhere it is with people in general, who don't want to have to work at their entertainment, perhaps because they've just come home from working all day.

That argument works in the US, as you have a series of purely commercial TV stations who do only have a duty to their shareholders. So they will give people something between what they want and what is easy to give them. But in the UK we have a license fee designed to allow the BBC to give us programs that we need rather than we want, and channel4 is owned by the government and has public service obligations.

Obviously this doesn't mean that they should make programmes which noone wants to watch, but it does mean that they should be putting more effort and airtime into good solid science programmes than the audience would possibly justify.

Instead we have a situation where there is probably less money and airtime devoted to science and technology than the audience demands. Which is probably something to do with the interests and education of the commissioning editors...

In the end, it really comes down to criticising other people for not wanting to do what we enjoy doing, and who has a right to say what other people should enjoy?

No it comes down to criticising a public service broadcaster who gets a tax in order to not just give people what they want  but what they need, not giving the population as many decent science programs as it needs (or probably wants) to be healthy wealthy and wise.

[DrN]

I agree. Without wishing the BBC to become a government mouthpiece, it does have a responsibility to use our licence fee appropriately.

[paul.fr]

But appropriately to you, them and I are differnet things. Those of you (us) that want or would like more fact based science programming I would say are the minority, the BBC are giving the masses what they want...cheap crappy productions that do not tax or exert and are sprinkled with "celebrities".

[BenV]

TV should be to inform and entertain - we've got the entertainment, so where's the information? I agree with one of the earlier comments, Tomorrow's world was brilliant. I also remember Johnny Ball being fantastic when I was young. I used to watch all these types of programmes with my dad, and I really think that's what got me interested in science. And I mean proper science. I don't think Brainiac would have had the same effect - sure, it's entertaining, and it's based on science, but it doesn't really inspire or encourage people to find out more about anything.

I've been to a couple of events at the Dana centre (at the Science Museum in London), and they really are fantastic - often the most interesting nuggets are the applications of fairly mundane scientific discoveries, and learning about how the most off-the-wall types of research can impact significantly on our lives. The one that stands out the most was the 'smell' session a couple of years ago, where we discovered just how many applications an 'electronic nose' may have - including the potential for sniffing out cancer cells. This is how science should be presented on our TVs!

Our own Meera Senthilingam has been involved in setting some of those up!

I'd agree - I grew up with Johhny Ball (BBC), How2 (ITV), Tomorrows World (BBC), then Scrapheap Challenge (C4), even Time Team (C4)... It's so easy for TV to inspire.

With regards the other discussion - does TV give people waht they need, or what they want - people actually do want more science.  The Eurobarometer Survey in 2000 (not sure if they've updated it on these themes since) showed, basically, that the amount of sport coverage roughly matched the demand, but the amount of science coverage was far below the demand (defined at the number of people saying "I an interested in science and technology" vs the number saying "I feel I am well informed...").  Chris knows more about this, and I'd have to dig out the survey to give you figures.  It would be interesting to sit down with commisioning editors and get their reactions to that survey.

I should add though, that both Hammond and his erstwhile Top Gear colleague James May have both made good engineering series recently, and natural history is, as always, very well served.

[paul.fr]

With regards the other discussion - does TV give people waht they need, or what they want - people actually do want more science.  The Eurobarometer Survey in 2000 (not sure if they've updated it on these themes since) showed, basically, that the amount of sport coverage roughly matched the demand, but the amount of science coverage was far below the demand (defined at the number of people saying "I an interested in science and technology" vs the number saying "I feel I am well informed..."). 

Doesn't it depend on the question ,how it's phrased and how people then interpret the question? A simple yes to the question "I an interested in science and technology" does not mean the person wants to see more of it on the TV.

[BenV]

I'm afraid I can't quite remember the exact wording, but the survey was designed to answer questions about science in the media, so I'm fairly certain they will have worded it less ambiguously than me!