Welcome to the Future: Tomorrow's World and Popular Science

Welcome to the Future! This tag-line used to introduce us to Tomorrow's World, the BBC's weekly prime-time science and technology programme. In this essay, I will explore the context in which Tomorrow's World was originated, its content and the way it is presented, the language its uses, and ask if there is such a thing as 'popular science'.

Currently, there is a wide range of science programming on television(1). The terrestrial channels provide programming devoted to technology, medicine, physics, cosmology, psychology, biology and so on. Tomorrow's World, QED Horizon, Meet the Ancestors, and various ad hoc series such as Scare Stories (1997) and The Mind Traveller (1996) on BBC; Equinox, Time Team, and various series such as Against Nature (1997) and Brain Spotting (1996) on Channel 4. ITV currently transmits no specialised science programs. What scientific content on ITV provides appears in programs neither designed nor promoted to look like science programs; a recent example is Eye of the Storm. While not nominally science programs, a smattering of (usually) meteorological or geological information can be gleaned from these programs; for example, pyroclastic flow, eye-walls, and wind shear have all been dealt with on ITV 'disaster' programmes.

This breadth of science coverage on TV began in the 1960s, in the wake of the Pilkington Committee Report. This recommended an increase in the amount of air time given to scientific topics, and the institution of a second BBC channel to serve minority interests, including science. Before the Pilkington Report, science had been covered in either one-off specials, or as short series of programmes such as Eye on Research (1957-1958), Your Life in Their Hands (1958), and Matters of Medicine (1960). These programmes were based on the model of the lecture-demonstration given by the best scientists in their fields. Scientists lectured live to camera, and, if possible, directly from their laboratory or hospital theatre. If such an outside broadcast was not possible, a studio set would be recreated that mimicked the scientist's environment, to retain the sense of being in the laboratory. This mode of explication sat well with a Reithian view of broadcasting at its best; a member of the 'high' culture explaining his or her work to a 'mass' audience.

Tomorrow's World was developed in an atmosphere in which - despite the growing awareness of environmental problems associated with a technologically driven economy (as famously indicated by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1963)), and a burgeoning anti-science and rural romanticism associated with the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s - the dominant ideology of science and technology was that it was benign, a force for progress, and ideologically neutral. There was also growing concern in the 1960s that the comparative lack of scientific and technological education in Britain, particularly in relation to other advanced industrial nations. This British bias towards the arts in education had been articulated by the scientist and novelist C P Snow, in his 1959 lecture The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Snow highlighted the differences between those who studied the humanities, for whom the future did not exist, and those who studied the sciences, who had the future 'in their bones'. Snow warned that in British culture, engineers and technologists were neglected, and that economic and social decline would be the result of an education system that ignored the development of scientific and technological skills.

In the 1960s Harold Wilson, the leader of the Labour Party, accentuated a positive vision of science and technology. In his speeches he spoke of 'a Socialist-inspired scientific and technological revolution releasing energy on an enormous scale' and how 'The strength, solvency and influence of Britain [will] depend in the remainder of this century on the speed with which we come to terms with the world of change.'(2) Christopher Booker noted that it was not around Clause Four and nationalisation that Wilson rallied Labour supporters, but around such slogans as 'Change', 'Technology', 'Automation' and 'The Scientific Revolution'.(3) Such was Wilson's faith in science and technology that, after Labour's election victory in 1964, he created a Ministry of Technology.

The 1960s also saw a growing interest, in both the academic world and among the general public, in the increasing pace of change in science and technology. This interest was to lead to a burgeoning futurological literature. As the scientist and author John Gribbin noted:

During the middle and late 1960s, concern about the way the world might be going began to move out of the arena of academic debate amongst specialists, and became a topic of almost everyday interest to millions of people.(4)

Tomorrow's World began at around the same time as Alvin Toffler began research for his seminal work of futurology, Future Shock(5). Interestingly, Tomorrow's World seemed to fit Toffler's ideal model for educational methods that would enable the public to anticipate and adapt to a rapidly changing scientific and technological culture: '[t]o create a super-industrial education [] we shall first need to generate successive alternate images of the future."(6) and "[] one of the hidden clues to successful coping may well lie in the individual's sense of the future. The people among us who keep up with change, who manage to adapt well, seem to have a richer, better developed sense of what lies ahead than those who cope poorly.'(7)

Tomorrow's World began in July 1965. Its aim was to deliver information on science and technology to a wider audience than that for more 'serious' science programs. It differed from earlier science programs in that it was not based around a single scientist and his or her work, it was not restricted to a single location, and it did not take the form of a lecture delivered by the 'best in their field'. The program had a magazine format; short items were linked together by the presenter Raymond Baxter. The programme was faster moving than previous science programming. As Robert Maxwell Young notes: 'The originator of the programme, Aubrey Singer [] is reported to have said that the response he desired was an awed "Gee Whiz!" from the viewer after every item.'(8) In the 1970s the format of Tomorrow's World changed; Raymond Baxter was replaced by a team of presenters. The program became more colourful, in both senses of the word, and faster. It could command audiences of over 8 million. The format has remained the same up until the present day, although the presenters have changed. Each programme has a similar format a brief introduction, usually outlining what is in the programme; and then four to seven items are presented.(9) Each item is usually on a different topic: medicine, technology, pure science, biology, and so on. Because Tomorrow's World is on television for most weeks of the year, and because it has a magazine format, a wide range of topics is covered. It is possible, using the Tomorrow's World web-site(10), to give a rough guide to the topics covered by the programme. The web-page splits the items presented in a series of programmes into topics; I will use these topics here. These figures are for programmes shown from 1994 to 1997:

This shows, that, unsurprisingly, the exposition of technology (including gadgets) dominates. What might be surprising, however, is the amount of time given over to medicine. However, we can do a similar exercise with Horizon(11):

We can see that the proportion of program time devoted to medicine and biology in Horizon not only equals that of Tomorrow's World, but exceeds it. In newspapers and magazines, as Jones notes: 'previous surveys have shown [that] medical items predominate in newspapers [T]he more popular the newspaper or magazine, the greater the proportion of items in it devoted to biomedical topics.'(12) In the case of these two television programmes, it appears that the situation is reversed; the program with higher status - Horizon - devotes more time to medicine. However, this also reflects the historical situation in regard to televised science; as we have already seen, many of the early television science programmes were based around medical topics. In fact, it was a criticism lodged with the Pilkington Committee that in those science programmes that had been output up until 1961, medical science appeared to receive more attention than all other aspects of science and technology put together. Judging by the simple analysis above, it appears the BBC's flagship science program still favours medical science.

I agree with Jones et al that 'there are obvious reasons for the popularity of medicine in the newspapers. It has a "human interest", and it is concerned with issues, such as health, birth, death and sex, which have a universal, as well as personal appeal.'(13) As T S Eliot said in The Hollow Men: 'That's all the facts when you come to brass tacks; birth, copulation and death'. This analysis reminds us of Bahktin's 'carnival pleasures': the identification of the body with fornication, excrement, birth, and so on; but I feel this analysis needs to be taken further for both the 'high' status Horizon, and the 'popular' Tomorrow's World. Horizon's audience is comprised in part of a social and economic elite. This elite already spends more on private health care, alternative therapies and so on than other members of society; and perhaps, are more aware of the frailty of their bodies and an impending death that their status cannot deny. Medical and biological stories, particularly those dealing with the diseases of old age and gene therapy, offer this elite a glimpse of an elixir of youth that perhaps awaits them in the future. In contrast, medical technologies shown on Tomorrow's World are more likely to be readily available than those shown on Horizon. Medical technology shown on Tomorrow's World is likely to result in hundreds of phone calls from people in need of such technologies.

To enable the Tomorrow's World audience to understand the import of such medical breakthroughs, as well as other science and technology, the language employed by the Tomorrow's World presenters has to be simple enough not to alienate an audience of non-specialists, while at the same time giving enough information so that the audience can have a fair understanding of the concepts. It is in this use of language that Tomorrow's World can be seen as a program aimed a popular, 'mass' audience. This language is an example of Basil Bernstein's 'restricted code'. A restricted code is a simpler form of language that uses a small vocabulary and a simpler syntax. It is contrasted with an 'elaborated code' which has a more extensive syntax, and is better able to express abstractions and generalities. Elaborated code is more likely to be used on Horizon. For example, among the most technical terms used in one Tomorrow's World programme were 'fuselage', 'lift', 'aerodynamics', and 'downforce'; however, none of these words are likely to be alien to the general population. Similarly, Tomorrow's World uses a 'broadcast code' rather than a 'narrowcast code'. As the term implies, a broadcast code is one constructed to reach a wide audience; a narrowcast code is one aimed at a specific audience. Like restricted code, broadcast codes are simple, have an immediate appeal, and do not need 'education' to understand them. The message appears from an anonymous or institutional source; in the case of Tomorrow's World, the use of multiple presenters to articulate scientific topics preserves the anonymity of the originator. When scientists or innovators are shown talking about their work, it is usually through an interview with one of the presenters. This can be contrasted to Horizon, wherein a narrowcast code is employed. Information is less likely to be anonymous, as Horizon shows scientists talking about their work without the mediation of an interviewer. The vocabulary is likely to be more extensive, and the audience is likely to be self-selecting and based on common educational or intellectual experience.

The main criticism of science on TV, as elucidated by authors such as Jones, et al, and Gardner and Young, is that popular science is in general, simply a celebration of science and technology. In their view, what is missing from popular science is critique: critique of ideology, of philosophy, of processes. In popular science, scientific research or theories are shown as 'completed', closed and whole; the oppositions, disagreements, and processes that led to this theory or research position are omitted. I agree that, in the case of a programme such a Horizon - and it is nearly always, it seems, Horizon that is singled out as the exemplar - such criticisms are valid. I also recognise, however, that such an approach would cause problems in the exposition of popular science. For example, topics that can be covered in a single Horizon programme might need to be spread over two or three programmes. Such an approach, would become almost impossible in the case of a program such as Tomorrow's World. Not only would its structure become cumbersome, and the pace and flow become disrupted; it also seems likely that the code required to discuss such critique (remembering, for example, that 'critique' is itself a specialised term) would have to move from a restricted/broadcast code to an elaborated/narrowcast code. It would, in fact, turn Tomorrow's World into a different programme altogether, and one much less accessible to a popular audience.

However, the use of a restricted/broadcast code in the case of Tomorrow's World no longer seems to be having the desired effect. Despite the incredible claim on one of the Tomorrow's World web-pages that 25 million people regularly tune into the show on BBC1 and cable (that is, the combined audience for East Enders and Coronation Street), the viewing figures seem to be falling. According to BARB audience research figures(14) Tomorrow's World does not even feature in the top 30 BBC1 programmes for the week ending 16/08/98. This puts its current viewing figures at less than the 5.19 million commanded by Celebrity Ready, Steady, Cook, and less than Ground Force (6.12 million), the garden make-over programme on the 'minority' BBC2. Compare this with ITV's Eye of the Storm, which in the same week managed an audience of 8.73 million.

This drop in audience figures comes despite 'Philippa's Shining New Look for Science', as a headline in the Daily Mirror (4/8/1998) put it. Philippa Forrester joins a long roll-call of presenters who had previously been involved in children's programming(15) when she began presenting single items on Tomorrow's World in 1995. There is little doubt as to the motive in giving Philippa Forrester prominence. As the Daily Mail (30/4/97)(16) noted: '[] if you thought science wasn't sexy, Philippa Forrester has a different theory. And she has the viewing figures - as well as the figure - to prove it.' In this interview, Forrester notes how 'Science is definitely becoming more trendy now. It is generally being portrayed in a way which is more attractive to young people especially. Tomorrow's World reflects that. It's really come into its own recently after being rather an ugly duckling at one point.' Indeed it is contended that before Philippa Forrester, the audience was around the 3.5 million mark, and that after her arrival, the audience rose to around 8 million. However, such a resurgence seems to have been short-lived. Current viewing figures are certainly less than 5 million, and as a subject for popular television, science is, it seems no more trendy than cooking, gardening, or pets.

As I see it, the problem - or perhaps the success - of Tomorrow's World has been its 'emptiness'. It is a simulation of science without the substance of science. It is also a simulation of itself. It is, in fact, almost a heritage industry in itself. The Tomorrow's World web-site and the Tomorrow's World magazine maintain an image of Tomorrow's World as TV's 'most popular science programme' or as its 'longest running science programme'. Yet its popularity is in doubt, and its longevity is almost equalled by Horizon. Its success in the sixties and early seventies was almost certainly due to cultural factors: the feeling of living in a time of great scientific and technological change; a time when science and technology seemed to be providing new and exciting products. However, now we have lived through 40 or 50 years of such change - when change is endemic, when the arguments over the benefits and utility of technology are difficult, complicated, and not easily explicated - then Tomorrow's World seems empty of meaning. It is less "Gee Whiz" and more "So what?". It is a conveyor belt of products and discoveries that are explained and then gone in five minutes, week after week, year after year; it creates a view of science that makes science easily accepted and acceptable, but just as easily forgotten and dismissed. I think the viewing figures reveal something deeper, as well: and that is that science, as a topic, is simply not that popular. Significantly, in the last 10 or so years, there has been an increasing audience for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics: programmes such as X-Creatures, Fortean TV, X-Files and so on; whether this is due to anti-scientific feelings, or pre-millennial tension, or whatever, would take another essay to explain. While it can be argued that programmes like Tomorrow's World omit important information such as the sociology and the processes of science and ideology, to try to explain these topics for every five minute item would seriously undermine what Tomorrow's World is, and the broadcast codes upon which it is based. It is best to accept - and to let it stand or fall - on what it is: a fast-moving spectacle, a celebration, a gee-whizz-fest. Empty. Hollow. Very pomo.

Booker, Christopher, The Neophiliacs (London: Collins, 1969; repr. London: Fontana 1970)
Fiske, John, Introduction to Communications Studies, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1990; repr. 1996)
Gardner, Carl, and Young, Robert M, 'Science on TV: a Critique', in T. Bennett et al., eds. Popular Television and Film (London: BFI Publishing, 1981)
Gribbin, John, Future World (London: Sphere/Abacus, 1979)
Hewison, Robert, Culture and Consensus: England, Art and Politics Since 1940, rev. edn (London: Methuen, 1997)
Jones, Greta, et al., The Presentation of Science by the Media (University of Leicester mimeo, 1978)
Kumar, Krishnan, Prophecy and Progress (London: Penguin, 1978)
Nelkin, Dorothy, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W H Freeman, 1987)
Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock (London: Bodley Head, 1970)
    Previews and Premises (London: Pan, 1984)