How would a Cable Science Network work

I found the proposal for a Cable Science Network (CSN) made by Terrence J. Sejnowski in his Essay “Tap into science 24-7” (1 Aug., p. [601][1]) provocative and appealing. However, there is a substantial practical obstacle to this plan that becomes apparent when the analogy to C-SPAN is examined a bit more closely. C-SPAN's goal—to broadcast official governmental proceedings and statements—is an easy one to achieve from a programming perspective. C-SPAN does not need to exercise editorial discretion in choosing to air Congressional debates, speeches by governmental officials, and governmental administrative proceedings, because there is absolutely no question that the officials and legislators talking are indeed who they purport to be and the proceedings what they appear to be. The situation would be quite different for CSN, whose stated goal is to provide unbiased, expert information, commentary, and debate concerning scientific issues relevant to public policy. Achieving this goal will be quite difficult, and extensive editorial discretion is required to answer such questions as “who is a relevant expert?”, “what positions are unbiased?”, and “what topics should be addressed?” The answers to these questions are not self-evident and cannot be obtained through application of any objective or mechanical test. For example, would a scientist with a Ph.D. in a relevant field, but who works under the auspices of a “lobbying” organization, be considered worthy of appearing on CSN? What reasoned standard would exclude this “expert,” but not a scientist with similar academic credentials who works at a university? And what about scientists who work at “unbiased” institutions, but who receive funding from “biased” sources? I think that a CSN could be a valuable addition to the sources of scientific information currently available to the public, to legislators, and to administrative officials, but it is going to be very difficult—if not impossible—to distinguish “biased” from “unbiased” sources of information on the brief time scale required for 24-7 television programming. # Response {#article-title-2} Nitabach raises the important issue of how to ensure that CSN presents a fair and unbiased view of scientific issues. One cornerstone of avoiding bias on CSN would be a scientific advisory board with stellar credentials (already being formed) that could provide advice about programming. Scientific societies would also be a source of advice and support. Many scientific societies have media outreach programs that include taped lectures, interviews, and press conferences, and CSN could serve as a central nexus for all of these efforts, disseminating them to a wider audience. It will be essential to present a balanced view of both sides of controversial issues. We see this more as an opportunity to engage the audience with a lively debate. Nitabach is not quite correct when he says that “C-SPAN's goal—to broadcast official governmental proceedings and statements—is an easy one to achieve from a programming perspective.” C-SPAN's mission statement ([1][2]) talks of providing access to governmental proceedings “with a balanced presentation of points of view”; of providing a forum for people who influence public policy “without filtering or otherwise distorting their points of view”; of providing access, through call-in programs, to decision-makers; and of employing “production values that accurately convey the business of government rather than distract from it.” Substitute “science” for “government,” and you have CSN. Broadcasting governmental proceedings is only a part of C-SPAN's schedule. The network also carries a broad spectrum of nongovernmental meetings, book readings, history, and advocacy lectures (clearly identified). C-SPAN strives to be an honest broker in allocating air-time. CSN would do the same. 1. 1.[↵][3] 1. S. Frantzich, 2. J. J. Sullivan , The C-SPAN Revolution (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Tulsa, OK, 1996), p. 2. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1084463 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text"