A MAGAZINE recently asked me to predict a man’s sexual performance by his preferences in takeaway food. Most reputable scientists wouldn’t dream of predicting sexual function like this—and that’s what Itold the magazine. So they found someone to say what I wouldn’t. They always do. The resulting article told the reader it was a “fact” that men who enjoy kebabs require instant sexual gratification.
No newspaper or magazine article or television documentary is complete these days without the obligatory appearance of an “expert”. But too often “expert” stands for “the first person we found who would talk to the press, and who would say what we or our editor wanted to hear”. So academics who are too busy or too shy—or too worried about colleagues’ reactions to being labelled an “expert” of this kind—don’t get heard.
Neither do those who have views that are informed, but not exciting.
Advertisement
So what’s more worrying? That readers believe silly stories, or that they cease to believe other, genuine experts? There is plenty of scope for different, conflicting and entertaining views from experts. That’s not the problem. Many academics already talk to the press responsibly—and, more important, discuss opinions based on sound evidence. The problem is the rise of the soundbite expert. Substandard academics who just want to be famous and pass on gossip, not evidence.
As an academic working in the field of sex and relationships I feel the problem particularly sharply. This area of work is traditionally looked down on by scientists in other fields, and I could be setting myself up for a fall by writing this. But I’m acutely aware of the need for good-quality, accurate information to improve people’s lives and prevent problems. Instead, those who know little or nothing about sex research seem to get top billing in the press. This devalues my work and that of my colleagues still further and short-changes the public.
The only solution is for good researchers to be their own PR people, and those skills should be taught alongside research skills. It’s important to give colleagues a precise account of your work. It’s just as important to be able to give a short and snappy summary that is accurate while being, obviously, less precise. If you won’t or can’t, desperate journalists will resort to the “would you say that…” interview method, transforming your grunt of assent into a full-blown quote. This training should include the ethics of expertise. If your field is dermatology, you talk about that, not about everything else that takes your fancy. Anyone talking to the press should be accountable, which means being prepared to prove that they’ve taught, researched or published in the field for which they claim authority. The media, for its part, must ensure it gets the best expert. Did that sexual performance story really need an “expert” at all? Couldn’t it just have been presented as the fun it was?
Without these checks, gossipologists will continue directing public opinion.
And that’s bad news for all of us.
