MEDIA: Panicology, By Simon Briscoe and Hugh Aldersey-Williams, Penguin Viking, 284pp. £20IT IS somewhat unnerving reviewing a book that opens with the excoriation of a book review, writes Joe Humphreys.
In their introduction to Panicology, Simon Briscoe and Hugh Aldersey-Williams take to task a critic "in a serious broadsheet newspaper" who says the following about a publication on a very modern ecological concern (over-fishing in this instance): "This book made me feel sick. It also, equally effectively, made me feel ashamed, despondent and anxious, increasingly disenchanted with our politicians and, above all, guilty . . . this invaluable book."
"Observe," Briscoe and Aldersey-Williams interject, "not merely the dire mental turmoil that the book induces, but the reviewer's pathetic gratitude at being brought into this state. As a personal response . . . it is typical of the way increasingly we are all invited to feel about the endless catalogue of disasters that are supposed to await us."
Panicology invites us to feel no fear. In fact, it seeks to induce little emotional response of any kind. Its authors - one a maths scholar and other the statistics editor of the Financial Times - are tradesmen in numerical facts, and proud of the fact. Their prose is measured, and sentiment-free, whether it is dealing with the "threat" of overpopulation, mobile phone radiation, or the possibility of an alien invasion. Think Al Gore without the fancy props, the salesman's patter, and - oh yes! - the overt concern for global warming, and you have them.
It is not that the authors are uninterested in climate change. They describe it as "arguably the most serious issue we confront in this book". It is just they object to the way it has become "the media's most sustained, enduring and infectious panic story". Alluding to the "wrist-slitting" writings of James Lovelock and Gore's "hardly less bleak" movie An Inconvenient Truth, they concede that the world's temperatures are rising but claim - somewhat vaguely - that the problem can be contained at a cost of around "a hundred dollars, euro or pounds per person per year".
The sceptical approach of Panicology has its attractions. It is refreshing to read a book that purposely tries to avoid drawing conclusions. The authors have opinions - arguing, among other things, that we have little to fear from GM foods and that terrorism is less of a threat to us than we think - but instead of baldly stating such "facts" they put the figures before us and let us do the maths for ourselves.
On bird flu, for instance, they note that while it has "yet to claim a single human victim in Europe or the Americas, and has killed fewer than 300 people worldwide . . . the familiar winter flu that nobody panics about claims at least 30,000 American and 12,000 British lives each year". On the MMR vaccine, they point out that there is no respected research indicating a link between the jab and autism, yet fears about the same led to Britain's first child measles fatality for 14 years in 2006.
Panicology is rightly critical of the media for tolerating cod science, and sheer innumeracy. Among the authors' pet hates are journalists talking - nonsensically - about disasters being "overdue", newspapers failing to inform readers of who is responsible for carrying out surveys (as this information can put the results in a different light), and articles burying salient points - which put the relevant "scare" in perspective - in the last couple of paragraphs. Governments are also criticised for reinforcing the popular formula of "risk = hazard x outrage".
One of the greatest strengths of the book is its ability to approach seemingly intractable problems in new ways. It also has the courage to ask awkward questions (for example, "does biodiversity matter anyway?"). Funny, then, that it never wonders: "Is hysteria sometimes a help?" While Panicology spends much time attacking the hype-merchants, it admits that "the key" to defeating the Sars virus "was openness and rapid reporting", and that other problems have been ameliorated through blitzes of public education.
This is but a minor quibble. A major one is the authors' tendency to deal with overwhelming evidence to justify nervousness on certain issues by blithely suggesting that science and/or commerce will sort everything out for us in the end.
On over-fishing, for example (dealt with in a chapter entitled 'The Cod Delusion') the authors admit current practices have dramatically lowered fish stocks, while contaminating the marine environment. "But," they add breezily, "aquaculture is a young industry." A similar tact can be found in the chapter on rising sea levels. The authors dismiss those calling for urgent action, stating chirpily that the impact will be gradual and "if Bangladeshis grow wealthier at the predicted global rate, they too will be able to afford to safeguard many homes". Such arguments leave the reader feeling not reassured - nor anxious, nor indeed any strong emotion, for that matter - but rather a little short-changed.
Joe Humphreys is an assistant news editor with The Irish Times