Don't shoot the scientists

Simon Jenkins is right to say that obsessive media coverage of swine flu, ever thirsty for hyperbole and impatient for new developments, can be misleading (Sophie's sniffle mocks the peddlers of swine flu panic, 6 May). And advice issued by government should rightly be debated.

But the suggestion that scientists "depend on regular pandemic scares for government grants" is paranoid (we might as well say Jenkins invents contrary opinions in order to be paid by the Guardian). In his dismay at the lack of a pandemic he reminds me of a man playing Russian roulette who, after two squeezes of the trigger, declares: "Ha! This isn't dangerous after all!" The possibility of a pandemic is real but cannot yet be predicted with assurance.

Jenkins declares that "no medical authority ... has confined its reporting to the facts". Yet the majority of scientists have been cautious and measured on the subject. At the Science Media Centre we have spoken to dozens of scientists on the subject and I haven't yet found one who is clamouring to make more media appearances; these people are hardly underworked at the moment.

I am proud of our virologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists for giving up their time to explain complex and uncertain science. Imagine the alternative: scientists having secret meetings with ministers, and official statements issued from behind closed doors. The bad old days - now that would make me panic.

There is no excuse for hyping a story, but the source of that hype is not always plain. Here's an example: a senior virologist I know was asked by a journalist how many deaths might be expected if a full-scale pandemic were to take a global hold. He said the figure was impossible to predict with any accuracy, but between one and 50 million would be a reasonable estimate. "Fifty million could die, say scientists" was the next day's headline. Was the virologist wrong to make his statement? Absolutely not: it was scientifically valid and defensible. But after some editorial lopping it's no wonder Jenkins concludes that swine flu was greeted with "pandemonium".

Except that in the UK I don't see this pandemonium. I see people going to work, children going to school, and not a face mask in sight. Why? Because largely conscientious science journalism has ensured we have been well-informed. We get the science. We're not panicking.

"At last an expert speaks," Jenkins says of London schoolgirl Sophie de Salis describing her symptoms as mild. But such glee as scientists appear to be wrong is hollow schadenfreude. I don't hear any crowing that the flu pandemics of the past "might not have happened". They did; another one will; and it might start off looking very similar to this one.

Let's not forget that these pandemics are in living memory, and that the direction this infection will take remains unknown. And let's be cautious about how we get our news, remembering that media saturation and big headlines don't mean Armageddon. Which is why you might make a case for shooting the odd editor. But please, Simon, don't shoot any virologists; you never know when you might need one.

• Tom Sheldon is a biologist and spokesman for the Science Media Centre