As a member of the advisory board of the SMC, I should point out that this article has also been heavily criticised elsewhere for containing a number of flaws, not the least of which is that the author did not speak to any journalists who actually use the SMC ie the science correspondents of the UK national media.

I completely reject the allegation that the SMC is pushing a 'corporate science' agenda. The staff of the SMC report to its trustees and its advisory board, which includes a number of senior journalists, so the idea that we are all complicit in a 'corporate PR' strategy is rather ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of scientists who use the SMC are university researchers, not companies.

Equally ridiculous are the feeble examples cited as supposed proof in this article. For instance, it includes criticism of the SMC because it could not find any scientist who would offer a quote in support of an anti-GM paper. The paper had obvious flaws and was eventually retracted by the journal that published it.

There is a value in debating the contribution of SMCs to the communication of science, but this article provides a poor basis for such a discussion.

**********************************************************************

Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
. set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) . set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) . signoff psci-com (to leave the list) . Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************