ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

The ECU noted that, as a scientist, Dr Goldman was competent to give a view on the studies under consideration, and found no breach of impartiality in her selection as an interviewee.Μύ As to the content of the interview, the ECU noted that there is normally scope for more than one view on recently published scientific studies, and that the issues raised by the studies in question were best regarded as part of the normal exchange of expert views which accompanies emerging science, rather than the kind of controversy to which considerations of due impartiality apply.Μύ The ECU therefore found no breach of impartiality in the content of the item.Μύ

In relation to accuracy, however, the ECU noted that the Union of Concerned Scientists’ advocacy extended beyond β€œscience-based policy” and encompassed campaigning stances on a number of issues, climate change and environmental degradation being prominent among them.Μύ It concluded that information to that effect would have been helpful to viewers in evaluating what Dr Goldman had to say about research which suggested the possibility of a link between Covid-19 and the environmental issue of air pollution.Μύ It also noted that the presenter, having summarised the studies’ findings on correlation, began the interview by asking β€œBut can we know for sure if there is a link?” to which Dr Goldman replied that the studies were β€œcompelling evidence that suggests air pollution may be playing a role in what makes Covid more deadly”.Μύ Nowhere in the item was there reference to other factors, such as population density, which would have to be evaluated before conclusions as to a causal relationship could be drawn.Μύ In the ECU’s judgement, viewers were not given sufficient information about the interviewee or about other possible interpretations of the research to make an informed judgement about what they were hearing, and the item fell short of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s standards of accuracy in that respect.Μύ

Partly upheld