APPENDIX 132
Statement from Fiona Fox, Director, Science
Media Centre
I should start by saying that I feel most uncomfortable
with the idea of anything I have done becoming evidence in a dispute
between the MRC and NIMR. Robin Lovell-Badge and Colin Blakemore
are shining examples of that rare gift to science media-relations—brilliant
scientists who see the importance of engaging the media. As such
they are both valued friends of the Science Media Centre and we
take no position on the institutional issues involved in this
dispute.
So I submit this note reluctantly having been
advised that it would be frowned on if I failed to do so.
Here are the facts as I recollect them.
There was a long-standing open invitation from
our friend Robin Lovell Badge to visit him and colleagues in Mill
Hill. in Summer 2002 Robin called with proposing a specific time
and date. The invite came at a time where there had been some
media coverage of the row about NIMR and of course it crossed
my mind that this would be raised. However, my main interest was
to strengthen good relations with Robin, meet more good scientists
and find out more about the science going on at Mill Hill so I
went along.
The meeting was a long time ago and my memory
of it is sketchy. However I do remember Robin leading me into
a room with about 10-15 people who were introduced as his equivalents
(ie Heads of Department). I gave a summary of the SMC and they
presented the main areas of science conducted at Mill Hill. The
discussion did turn to their dispute with the MRC about the possible
closure of NIMR and they certainly did ask my advice about the
media interest in this story and explained that they had been
approached by several media outlets for interviews and comment.
I gave bits and pieces of advice—which is of course what
I do—but did say that the SMC was good friends with the
MRC press office and I didn't feel I could in any way become an
adviser on this issue—which after all was an institutional
story not a science story. They were fine with that and no attempt
was made to persuade me to play that role. I suggested that if
they needed long term media advice but didn't feel they could
use the MRC press office, they should recruit a press officer—a
piece of advice I constantly give to any scientists trying to
get their case across in the media. However, as far as I know
they didn't pursue that option.
The meeting lasted about an hour and I went
back to the SMC. On the tube on the way back I decided that I
should tell someone at the MRC about the meeting. Carolan Davidge,
our main point of contact at that time—was on maternity
leave so I called Jane Gizbert, Head of Communications. She thanked
me for telling her and that was the last I heard or spoke about
the meeting until Colin Blakemore asked me about it in December.
To clarify one or two points:
1. I have been asked whether John Skehel
was present. The honest answer is I haven't a clue. Aside from
Robin I have not knowingly met any of the scientists in that room
before or since the meeting and I had no reason to remember their
names.
2. I feel I must explain the reference to
the demonstrations outside the MRC. Robin Lovell-Badge definitely
did not ask that question—he is more media savvy. But one
of the scientists in the room did very tentatively ask whether
I thought there would be any media interest in the entire staff
of NIMR donning their white coats and protesting outside an MRC
meeting. This was the most memorable bit of the meeting for me—(at
that time relatively new to the strange world of science media
relations)—and unfortunately I have obviously repeated it
to someone—but only because it's such a beautiful example
of the naivety of the scientific community about their own ability
to generate media coverage. After seven years doing press work
for a campaigning NGO which constantly had people dressed up outside
World Bank meetings etc—it was quite touching to hear a
scientist just starting to think in a similar way. I remember
laughing loudly and assuring him that the sheer novelty of 500
scientists protesting about anything would guarantee media interest—but
it was clear that there was no general enthusiasm for the idea!!!
January 2005
| 
