Speaking on a climate change panel at the Frontline Club last night, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black claimed the research community was 'underprepared for all facets' of the scandal. Black called for more transparency from the scientific community and said that scientists 'cannot remain in their ivory tower' while public interest stories break around their research.
"Clearly a lot of the scientists involved thought they would just be at conferences," he said. "They need a different skillset if [research] becomes controversial."
The scientific research community had also been too ready to dismiss journalists as "hostile" according to Guardian online environment editor James Randerson. "The PR department from UEA offered nothing at all – nothing to people sympathetic to their arguments and their scientists," he said.
Randerson admitted that some media outlets had sensationalised Climategate coverage to the detriment of scientific accuracy. "The emails did provide lots of very colourful quotes. In some ways it was quite easy to report – or it was reported very badly, with quotes taken out of context or without explanation," he said.
In April an independent panel concluded there had been no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia’s research unit, while a House of Commons report into the affair concluded the media focus on academic secrecy had been 'largely misplaced'.
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
Related articles
- From Reuters to The New York Times, Big Oil pays 'most trusted media brands' to push greenwashing
- What do audiences need from climate journalism?
- 'News companies need survival strategies and culture change'
- US university wants to solve information crisis with media trailblazers
- The Washington Post wants to help readers live sustainably
