The axing of Catalyst would be ''beyond tragic'', says Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman. Credit:James Brickwood The review found "a number of inaccuracies within the program that had favoured the unorthodox view that mobile phones and Wi-Fi caused health impacts including brain tumours". In the wake of Demasi's subsequent suspension, the ABC announced a review of the show's format with The Guardian reporting that it will lose its weekly spot and move to outsource its production resulting in the axing of its 11 staff. But Prof Chapman said it would be going too far to axe the program. "Catalyst has always been in the very top tier of science reporting. "At this juncture, when science needs all the sunlight it can get, it would be beyond tragic if it were to be axed. The scientific and public reaction to its rare editorial lapses have shown just how important a program it is."

The solution was for more quality, investigative science, not less, he said. "There has never been a more important time for funding for quality, investigative science journalism to be boosted, not sidelined." Dr Darren Saunders, a cancer biologist at the University of NSW, had criticised Catalyst's Wi-Fried? episode for giving undue weight to fringe views. "There was a lot of cherry picking of information going on; I think unnecessary fear mongering really," he said. "There are plenty of spaces in television and more broadly in the media for people trying to push a particular agenda or angle, particularly pseudo science." But Dr Saunders said it would be a shame if the ABC was "to throw the baby out with the bath water here". "It provides such an important role, it is really held in great regard by scientists and people who are interested in science. A shake up is fine and revisiting how they do the show . . . I have no problem with that I just hope we don't lose it altogether." He would be supportive of greater editorial oversight at story production level.

"It is at its best when it sticks to science, and presents it in an engaging way, and I think it is important because it provides a voice for Australian science which doesn't always get a hearing more broadly." An ABC spokesman told Fairfax Catalyst would remain part of the public broadcaster's schedule for 2017 but would not say in what form. "The ABC consistently reviews programs at the end of each year to ensure it maintains its commitment to audience needs and expectations," the spokesperson said. "After more than 15 years, ABC Television is reviewing Catalyst's format and production model. ABC management will respond to that review in due course." Catalyst's strength lies in turning complex scientific theories and research into digestible, consumer-friendly bites which informs and educates.

At its worse, say its critics - increasingly drawn from the very field it intends to illuminate - certain episodes have given credence to unverified research while downplaying evidence-based science, causing unnecessary consumer panic. It's October 2013 episode on statins was a case in point. More than 60,000 Australians cut back on or stopped taking cholesterol-lowering drugs after Catalyst episodes in October 2013 questioned their effectiveness, researchers found after looking at the records of 191,000 people. Their work was published in the Medical Journal of Australia. The ABC's in-house health specialist Norman Swan had feared the two broadcasts on cholesterol and heart attacks might cause deaths if people went off their medications. Walking the narrow line between info-tainment and science, frontier and evidence-based science has always been tricky.

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have arisen from unorthodox research. Loading After all, scientists warning of the climatic impacts of global warming, and those who faithfully reported their conclusions, are now coming to look virtuously prescient after decades in the cold. However, in an age where cynicism and conspiracy is the electric current of social media, proper regard and balance needs be to given to evidence-based science, not just the merely speculative, say those whose job it is to shape a healthier society.