This evening I saw some of Autumnwatch on the BBC. This is not my natural territory; too much rescuing foxes and squirrels for my liking. But something seems to have changed. Is there a whiff of real science here? Are they being a little more pragmatic and a little less sentimental? It certainly seems so. I really enjoyed this evening’s episode. Even though Simon King fed a squirrel by hand and praised magpies and jays? He did not do it in a wood preserved for shooting but in a city cemetery. There is a difference. [Cue gratuitous footage of starlings flocking…]
I have always been a Chris Packham fan. I first saw him in an interview where he extolled the virtues of wasps and said that too much money was wasted trying to keep pandas alive. Animals become extinct and pandas probably didn’t deserve the attention they got, given that other species’ potential extinctions were more directly due to man. I thought this a very refreshing point of view and one not often heard on the BBC. Tonight, he described the difference between male and female hornets (long antennae no sting v. short antennae ) and explained that only females sting. I hope he is right. I have some pretty mega hornets in France and the estate goes to DEFCON 1 when one is heard, let alone seen. I have watched them hunting and they are, as Chris describes them, top predators. Perhaps I will now be a little calmer next summer.
There seems to be an expectation amongst the presenters that the science should be good. Whilst the beauty of nature is a major part of its televisual appeal, they did not hold back from showing the gruesome sight of a parasitic worm emerging from a dying earwig. When a viewer sent in footage of a mink dragging an eel home to eat, the problem of introduced species was spoken of seriously. These guys know their stuff and discuss it sensibly.
Martin Hughes-Games, who seems to be in charge, has a good science degree and has worked as a producer in the BBC Bristol natural history department for years. I used to work with his Uncle at Ludgrove and so have been aware of his work for a while. I was not convinced by the ‘natural remedies’ section as it seemed unsupported by evidence. Back in the studio Martin was suitably deprecating of the sample size of one, and Chris made an oblique reference to the old adage,
“Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?”
“No, what do they call it?”
“Medicine!”
I was sufficiently impressed that I would watch it again. It was fun and funny whilst remaining quite science oriented. Even if you are not convinced you should watch it and shout at the TV every time they get their science wrong. Better still, write to the BBC when they make a lazy mistake or over-simplify an issue, but be sure to do your research first! They will want to know and you will be honing your skills.
Comments