Which of the following is usually not included in media stories on new scientific research?

1. A fantastic, attention-grabbing headline?
2. Arguments among advocates of different positions?
3. Contradictions of last week's "new" research? or
4. Context on to whom the research applies and how it can be implemented?

If you answered "D" then you recognize the uphill battle that most science communicators face when addressing journalists' questions. According to the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation's Food for Thought IV research on how the media report on diet, nutrition, and food safety, journalists provided adequate context in only 6 percent of their stories.

According to the report, the IFIC Foundation has found that little context is provided with the nutritional advice offered in the news. Four separate Food for Thought studies have examined thousands of stories that provided advice on what to eat (or what not to eat) for better health, but they have rarely specified how much to eat, how often certain foods should be consumed, or to whom the advice applies. This lack of context creates consumer confusion and a loss of confidence in science.

To help journalists, scientists, public affairs and public relations professionals, special interest groups, and others in the science communication process deliver the good (or bad) nutrition and food safety news to consumers, the IFIC Foundation, in conjunction with the Harvard School of Public Health, convened an advisory group and developed a set of practical guidelines for interpreting and reporting science-based information.

This advisory group was composed of scientists from Harvard and Tufts Universities, the editors of medical journals, representatives of professional interest groups and the food industry, and practicing journalists. Following the advisory group's initial meeting, a series of roundtables involving more than 60 other science communications professionals was held around the country.

Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety, and Health, originally published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1998, offers tips and advice and provides thought-provoking questions that everyone involved in science communication should ask themselves before disseminating important, yet possibly confusing, information to the general public.

In the fall of 2002, the IFIC Foundation reissued the Guidelines to more than 6,500 journalists, scientists, and health communicators across the United States. The Guidelines were accompanied by an open letter from Dr. Tim Johnson, Medical Editor for ABC News and chairperson of the original advisory group.

Dr. Johnson asked journalists to revisit the Guidelines and "re-emphasize their importance for those of us who have the serious responsibility of communicating nutrition, food safety, and health information."

The Guidelines are intended to suggest how context can be provided. They also outline the necessary data, disclosures, and contextual qualifiers that may help the public evaluate a study's relevance and importance.

The Guidelines pose some overarching questions, including:

1. Will your communication enhance public understanding of diet and health?
2. Have you put the study findings into context?
3. Have the study and findings been peer reviewed?
4. Have you disclosed the important facts about the study?
5. Have you disclosed all key information about the study's funding?

A major question that science communicators need to ask is whether the study is credible enough to warrant public attention. Some studies can be presented in an overly simplistic fashion, inappropriately characterizing individual foods, ingredients, or supplements. The best rule of thumb for communicators and the public interpreting the news is that if it sounds too good (or bad) to be true, it's probably not true or at least exaggerated.

The Guidelines also pose specific questions to each participant in the communication process.

For Scientists:

1. Have you provided essential background information about the study in your written findings or to journalists or to others requesting it in a language that can be understood?
2. Have you clarified dietary risks and benefits?
3. Have you met the needs of the media?

It is important that scientists make themselves available to the media when one of their studies is released. The authors of a study can help put it into context, explaining the benefits or harms discovered during the research process. They also can correct any misimpressions that the media may have.

For Journal Editors:

1. Does your embargo policy enhance public communication?
2. Do you encourage responsible reporting on study findings by the media?
3. Have you considered the effect of the study findings on consumers?
4. Does your submission policy permit scientists to clarify the results of abstract presentations with
   the media?

Competition is fierce among journalists, and that includes the editors of the many scientific journals that publish peer-reviewed research studies. Journal editors should act as a liaison between the mainstream media and the scientists who conducted the published study. This will help not only to encourage responsible reporting but also to put the science into consumer-friendly language.

For Journalists:

1. Is your story accurate and balanced?
2. Have you applied a healthy skepticism to your reporting?
3. Does your story provide practical consumer advice?
4. Is your reporting grounded in a basic understanding of scientific principles?

Although true science journalists are becoming an endangered species, that does not mean that new scientific research should go unexplained. It is the duty of the journalist to take the raw, scientific data and report the findings in a responsible manner. We all know that sensational headlines "sell papers," but responsible journalists will approach each new study with skepticism and provide practical advice to their audience.

For Industry, Consumer, and Other Interested Groups:

• Have you provided accurate information and feedback to the media?
• Do you adhere to ethical standards in providing diet and health information?

Interested groups, such as industry, consumer, and advocacy organizations, need to make sure that the information in the news releases that they issue is in keeping with the study findings and does not exaggerate, oversimplify, disregard, or sensationalize the findings. The information released by these groups should provide new insight and help enhance public understanding of the study results.

To summarize the importance of getting science communication right, Dr. Johnson wrote in his original introduction to the Guidelines, "These Guidelines can only make a difference if they don't sit on a shelf. Putting these recommendations into practice just might make a difference in the public's understanding of diet and health."

To receive a copy of the Guidelines write to “Improving Public Understanding Guidelines” P.O. Box 65708, Washington DC 20035 or access it here on the IFIC Foundation Web site.