The Sunday Mail
Sifelani Tsiko – Under the Baobab Tree
Two years ago, French microbiologist Gilles-Eric Séralini and several of his colleagues released the results of a long-term study which claimed to have linked the consumption of GM maize with the development of tumours in rats and the rest of the world took notice.
The international media were almost as quick to report the latest Séralini findings in the fraudulent genetic engineering study as hometown news outlets would with a media report of a high profile sex or drug scandal.
The story snagged top headlines and such industry giants as The Associated Press, Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC offered prominent coverage, while the story was the top-rated item on most publications here in Africa.
Social media was also instantly abuzz with the anti-GMO campaigners going on a “rampage” to demonise GMOs.
Opponents of genetically modified crops jumped on the results of a new study making wild claims that generated highly tweetable headlines.
This scared the whole world to epic levels, falling just short of the Ebola virus disease scare.
Horrifying pictures of mice with enormous tumours were beamed worldwide despite the criticisms that the results of the study used questionable methods, tumour-prone rats, and poor statistical techniques.
People in Africa and the rest of the world were shocked at the sight of these rats with huge tumours after having been fed GMO corn.
The Séralini study attracted heavy criticism from other scientists who said the study was largely flawed.
They dismissed it as a “Fraudulent genetic engineering study,” “Best purveyor of popular science,” “A Tsunami of lies” while others saw it as largely skewed and bad science.
The journal which published the Seralini study later retracted the paper after it came under severe criticism for the flawed French study.
The report simply torched the flames, igniting the bonfire of debate and discussions on the issue of genetic engineering, biosafety and media coverage and bad science.
The media was caught on the wrong side. The media failed to downgrade scientific rhetoric from the high clanging gongs of science that misrepresents facts for the sake of a headline.
It was the purveyor of the lasting damage to the reputation of GM foods, especially among people with easy access to the media on the continent.
Pulling bad science apart is one thing and explaining how good science works is another. This was the subject of debate at the just ended Second African Conference of Science Journalists held in Nairobi, Kenya.
Media and science experts who attended the conference, which was hosted by the Media for Environment, Science, Health and Agriculture (MESHA), expressed concern about the poor coverage of science by the African media.
More than 100 journalists from across Africa converged for the conference which sought to discuss ways to improve science journalism on the continent and also explore how it could play a part in ensuring that people get more exposure to science through aggressive reporting on science-related stories.
Even though there was significant improvement in science reporting on the continent, most participants felt that there is still a dismal lack of science and technology coverage in most African countries with way too much prominence being given to politics.
Discussions and presentations at the conference were rich in substance and detail providing the basis for future programmes to improve the quality and quantity of science and technology reporting in Africa.
“Things that are bringing change to Africa are not political, but things to do with the environment, health, agriculture and scientific technology,” says Wycliffe Muga, a renowned Kenyan newspaper editor and columnist.
“Our reporting of science must try and answer the question: so what? Our columns must generate discussion, move people to discuss and influence change.”
Otula Owuor, a veteran science journalist, said: “Africa more than any other continent needs more science journalism.
“Science journalism is evolving and you have to have a good flair for journalism. Other presenters like Okech Kendo said “envelope-mental journalism” or simply put “accepting bribes in brown envelopes” was killing the quality and strength of reporting in Africa.
“The issue of brown envelopes is a big problem and we have to find a solution. We do not have to live in denial,” he said. Veteran South African science writer Mandi Smallhorne said African journalists must be able to pull out bad science and desist from acting as appendages of multi-nationals and anti-biotechnology activists.
“Our job is to report science fairly and more accurately without taking sides. We must stick to the facts and bring out the truth from both sides – pro-GM side and anti-GM side. Biotech is much more than GM crops and we must report more on the less adverse side of biotechnology,” she said.
She said there are many myths around GMO issues and journalists must make a careful analysis of some of the entrenched positions.
Journalist and development communications specialist Daniel Otunge said knowledge is key to establishing the status and quality of media reporting on science and technology in Africa.
“Other people want Africa to be frozen and remain stuck in the Stone Age.
“We have to keep abreast with new technological advancement whilst at the same time carefully accessing the benefits to our people,” he said.
Aghan Daniel, another veteran Kenyan journalist, echoed similar sentiments. “When you write from a point of knowledge, you really add value to the quality of science reporting. We need accurate and balanced reporting.”
The conference offered African science journalists an opportunity to interact and exchange experiences and ideas with a seasoned crop of journalists, communications experts, researchers and policymakers from the continent and beyond.
The conference aimed to improve the quality of science journalism on the continent and to reflect on the challenges it faces whilst at the same time finding solutions to influence policy changes.
Science journalism in Africa is still grappling with various challenges.
Lack of simple and accessible scientific information, lack of professionalism by some journalists, lack of resources and inadequate support from media editors as well as a host of problems related to flouting media ethics, corruption, mistrust between scientists and journalists are also some of the factors contributing to the underdevelopment of science journalism.
Sloppiness and failure to adhere to media ethics will be detrimental to science reporting in Africa.
Scientific terminology also remains a major challenge being faced in communicating science. Science journalists were urged to remain impartial and to critique science-related issues instead of doing public relations work for the scientist or the research organisation.
Investment in professional development of science journalists in Africa was proposed as a way of addressing the problem. When everything was said and done, journalists were urged to strive to provide accurate and accessible information, provide platforms for debate and to protect the public interest.
There is no doubt that Africa needs to elevate science to a level where policymakers consider it as part of their overall governance, educational and development agenda.
