Also in the BBC guidelines comes this
3.4.6 We should only broadcast material from third parties who may have a personal or professional interest in its subject matter if there is a clear editorial justification. The material should be labelled. This includes material from the emergency services, charities, and environmental groups. We should be reluctant to use video and audio news releases or other similar material. We do not normally use any extracts from such releases if we are capable of gathering the material ourselves. The editorial significance of the material, rather than simply its impact, must be considered before it is used. If it is editorially justified to use it then we must explain the circumstances and clearly label the source of the material in our output.
and this:
4.4.20 Similarly, the BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
I'm struggling with the idea that Richard Black can use quotes delivered by the Science Media Centre without breaching these guidelines. Surely an independent news organisation, particularly one with the resources of the BBC, doesn't need to go to the Science Media Centre to get quotes? Why should the Science Media Centre - which has a political campaigner like Bob Ward on its board - get to decide which scientists' views are suitable for the BBC?