PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. Medical and Scientific Information and the Media by Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says, “Americans have trouble getting good information about health, with the Internet and cable television being conduits for an increasing onslaught of misinformation. We have to get our voices heard above the cacophony ...” This is supported by the survey of Bachmann, et al., which shows that subjects scored only an average of 32% when questioned about significant medical conditions. The authors found that those with university degrees, medical backgrounds, or personal experience with an illness were only slightly better informed and concluded, “there is a consistent and dramatic lack of knowledge in the general public...” Bird notes, “Communicating scientific or medical material to the public is problematic on several levels: limited scientific literacy of the general public compromises the capacity to understand the strengths and limitations of the scientific findings; scientific information changes as more is learned; scientific advice incorporates both assumptions about potential costs, risks and benefits, and values and value systems.” Tulaczyk warns, “The press coverage made it clear to me how hard it is to bring scientific work to public attention. Our scientific arguments are built on an intricate net of carefully separated facts, theories and hypotheses. In our sentences we weigh whether to use ‘is,’ ‘maybe,’ or ‘can’ as a verb. Yet such cautious scientific wording is often lost when it is translated into newsprint [-copy].” One must be careful not to confuse hypothesis and theory. The former is a possible explanation; the latter is the correct one. The factual establishment of theory is the very purpose of science. There is another influence which is more disturbing. While the public trust scientists and their institutions, generally, some people rely more on beliefs than on facts and on information presented to them by groups or individuals with whom they share beliefs or ideologies, especially religious ideology, which is turning scientific issues into political ones. The current political ideologues are willing to disregard, even to deny, scientific facts in making policy decisions, which cause mistrust of the government. Suppression of facts that are not consistent with their priorities has created an extensive repression of scientific freedom, which makes it most difficult for scientists to communicate with the public, who then remain ignorant, which suits those ideologues’ purposes. Gross notes that since 1979 the proportion of “scientifically literate” adults has doubled only to a paltry 17%--“literate” meaning the ability to understand the Science Section of the New York Times or some other science media, geared to a similar level. It requires a general understanding of basic scientific concepts and of the nature of scientific enquiry. The limiting step in enhancing scientific literacy is not people’s capacity for learning but its interest. Augenbraun shows that 47% of US adults get their scientific and medical information from broadcast media, with another 32% using the print media for the same. The cognizant and experienced observer will be able to recognize, in the piece, the overselling, overscaring and oversimplifying. But the public audience is varied in the sophistication of its components. The delivering journalist, at times with no specific training for his role, cannot use the traditional who, what, where, when and why. Campion observes that this reporter “must work quickly and explain complex topics, and his interpretations may be vulnerable to skilled management of the media” by the various forces including “the enthusiasm of the investigators.” Woloshin et al. insist that writer and editors reporting scientific findings should ensure that their articles include three items: 1) basic facts and conclusions; 2) cautions about study designs with intrinsic limitations; 3) clear statements about the preliminary stage of reported work. One will illustrate the results of the failure to do this, using a piece published in the local San Francisco Chronicle by Carl T. Hall, “Chronicle Science Writer.” While researching this issue and after one’s comments were sent to his editor, one noted that this reporter had been cited previously for his lack of skill. [v.i., Woloshin, ref. 14] One is not creating a straw man. Hall’s title, “Stem cell breakthrough turns out to be a lot less than first advertised,” is pejorative. He blames the “fuzzy statements to the press,” “media summary,” and “press releases” on which he relied for his misinterpretation of the “seeming ethics breakthrough.” He does admit that the methodology “was clear in the report...which appeared in Nature.” In fact the report by Klimanskaya, et al., was describing the completion of a proof of principle study about previously published work by Young, et al. It is clear to any informed observer that Hall’s nescience was due to his poor use of sources and to his lack of due diligence. Peter Dolan, a researcher at the University of Illinois, Chicago, says, “If you want the facts, you have to go to the original scientific, peer-reviewed literature and avoid the broken-telephone effect of the popular [media].” The use of press releases as a primary source is fraught with difficulties, as this writer learned. In fact, the application of a term such as “breakthrough” in this context may harm the news consumer by misleading and misinforming and should not be used as it is meaningless. To give two specific examples: Hall is confused by the technique of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis as it is used clinically and as it may be applied in the laboratory. A brief read would have clarified this for him. Further, he talks about ethics when he means religious constraints. Ethics, from the Greek ethikos, refers to ethos; while religious is from the Latin religio, referring to piety. Peter Andrews gives the caution, “If you do science for the purpose of getting around political restrictions, this only make things worse; it makes science seem dishonest.” In fact, it is this writer who is communicating this misinformation, and the product is strictly of his own making. It is then the reader who must make that judgment. Some journalists say that their role and responsibility in covering scientific and medical news are no different than these in reporting other news; their primary concern should be clear and accurate reporting and not the possible consequences of the published story. This approach has lead to shoddy journalism and possible harm to the public. The ideal, but impractical, solution suggests that only journalists who share the expertise of the principals of the work should report on the work. However, there is published material, e.g., “A Statement of Principles for Health Care Journalists,” which can guide reporters for the challenges of interpreting medical and scientific reports and of translating them for the expectant public. The National Institutes’ of Health Office of Medical Applications of Research presents a free annual training opportunity to help develop journalists’ ability to evaluate and report on research. Diligent media organizations spend considerable time and effort acquiring and maintaining relationships with numerous credible sources, on whose expertise they can rely. Nevertheless, the ability to investigate the merits and deficiencies of a particular report depends on the talent of that reporter, the availability of resources, and the time pressure to produce a story. As information filters through the news dissemination process, the information contained, compared with the original report or the preceding comprehensive media coverage, becomes markedly attenuated. The medical and scientific journalist of today has the fiduciary obligation to invest the time and trouble to acquire the necessary skills for factual and accurate reporting. It is important that research scientists and clinician-scientists engage the public and those reporting to them and educate them, as it is essential that accurate scientific and medical information be communicated effectively to the public through the media. Many scientists do not have the time, interest, or skills to present findings to the media and then to a general audience. Science professionals, especially those conducting research, are generally not good at communicating science to those beyond their peer group. The centrality of science to today’s world and its population mandates that the scientific and medical communities develop closer links with the general population so that this nation and its citizens can make appropriate use of such information. Scientists need to respect the public’s perspective and concerns even when they do not share them and to develop a partnership that can respond to them. The AAAS and UCS have put into place tools to effect this, so that the knowledgeable voices can be heard by all who need to listen, even if they do not; including, especially, the policymakers. --------------------------------------------------- References: Abbott, SA, “‘Ethical’ stem cell paper under attack,” Nature 2006, 443:12 Augenbraun, E, “Weapon of mass attraction,” Nature 2005, 433:357 Bachmann, LM, et al., “Do citizens have minimal medical knowledge?” BMC Medicine 2007; 5:14 Bird, SJ, “Communication Scientific Advice to the Public,” IPTS Report, 26 April 2005 Campion, EW, “Medical Research and the News Media,” New England Journal of Medicine 2004, 351:2436 Doran, PL, researcher at the Univ. of IL, Chicago, Personal Communication Editorial, “Science under attack,” Nature 2006, 439:891 Fox, S, “E-patient With a Disability or Chronic Disease” Pew Internet & American Life Project, 8 Oct 07 Furedi, F, “Downsizing the Status or Science,” The Scientist 2004, 18:10 Gehlbach, SH, Interpreting the Medical Literature (5th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006 Gerberding, J, quoted by Maggie Fox, Reuters News, 16 Jul 07 Goldacre, B, “Why don’t journalists mention the data?” British Medical Journal 2007, 334:1245 Gross, L, “Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology,” PLoS Biology 2006, 4(5):e167 Hall, CT, “Stem cell breakthrough turns out to be a lot less that first advertised,” San Francisco Chronicle, F3, 24 September 07 Hayes, RA, A Scientists Guide to Talking to the Media, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2006 Klimanskaya, I, Lanza, R, et al., “Human embryonic stem cells derived from single blastomeres,” Nature AOP, 23 Aug 06, doi: 10.1038/nature05142 Jensen, P, “Public Trust in Scientific Information,” IPTS Report, 14 September 2000 Johnson, Y, “Shattuck Lecture —Medicine and the Media,” NEJM 1998, 339:87 Lantz, JC, “Observations from the Mayo Clinic National Conference on Medicine and the Media,” Mayo Clinic Proceeding 2002, 77:1306 Leshner, AI, “A Dangerous Signal to Science,” Science 2004, 306:2163 ___________, “Public Engagement with Science,” Science 2003, 299:977 Miller, J, et al., “American Trust in Science and Technology: An analysis of data from the second half of the 20th century,” Conference paper, American Association for Public Opinion, 16 Aug 2003 Okie, S, “Single-Cell Storm,” NEJM 2006, 355:1634 Russell, N, “The play is the thing...,” The Scientist, Daily News, 21 July 06 Schwitzer, G, et al., “What Are the Roles and Responsibilities of the Media in Disseminating Health Information? “PLoS Medicine 2005, 2:e215 ____________, “A Statement of Principles for Health Care Journalists,” The AmericanJournal of Bioethics, 2004, 4:W9 Sturgis, P, et al., “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 2004; 13(1):55 Tulaczyk, S, Asst. Professor, UC, Santa Cruz, personal communication Wolosin, S, et al., “Media reporting on research at scientific meetings: more caution needed,” Medical Journal of Australia 2006, 184:576 _______________, “Press Releases: Translating Research into News,” Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287:2856 Young, C, Lanza, R, et al., “Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres,” Nature 2006, 439:216 ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
