Over the past few years we have heard a lot about the importance of unbiased scientific research. Scientific institutions and journals have responded positively, strengthening their criteria for transparency.
But what about the communication of scientific issues? How important is journalistic clarity, objectivity, and context in disseminating often complex information to the public? When consumers make health and nutrition decisions based on stories about scientific research in the media, is there an obligation to be sure that the information reported is accurate and fully explained?
A prestigious group of organizations in Great Britain thinks so. The Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the Royal Society and the Royal Institution of Great Britain developed Guidelines on Science and Health Communication specifically for print and broadcast journalists and science and health professionals, which were issued in 2001. The guidelines represent a joining together of the information from two documents that grew from the concern expressed within the health and science communities about the manner in which scientific issues are covered in the media. In the development of the guidelines, the organizations asked, "Why does it matter how health and science issues are reported?" The answer, simply, is that misleading information is potentially dangerous; it can even cost lives.
The assumption is that all responsible journalists and scientists can agree that the general public has the right to accurate information on the basis of which individuals can make informed lifestyle decisions.
To help scientists and journalists act on that assumption, the Social Issues Research Centre and the Royal Institution of Great Britain brought together a forum of highly acclaimed scientists, physicians, medical specialists, and members of the media to establish guidelines that acknowledged the right of journalists to comment and editorialize. The guidelines emphasized, however, that there must be a clear distinction made between fact and conjecture or opinion. The Press Complaints Commission of Great Britain accepted these guidelines.
Furthermore, the forum emphasized that scientists themselves have a similar role to play in presenting their research findings accurately and responsibly; thus, a set of guidelines was developed for scientists, research departments, and professional bodies. The guidelines were prepared in consultation with the leading medical and scientific institutions and societies. Subsequently, the Royal Society published Scientists and the Media: Guidelines for Scientists Working with the Media and Comments on a Press Code of Practice, which was endorsed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
The two sets of guidelines have been combined to create a common set of guidelines with the goal of achieving more balanced and accurate reporting of health and science issues and much improved working relationships between scientists and the media. A checklist was developed for members of the media and for science and health professionals to serve as a guide to ensure that important facts—including why the data may or may not warrant a change in diet or behavior—are included in the public discussion of scientific findings.
In a similar vein, a publication based on the findings of an advisory group convened by the Harvard School of Public Health and the International Food Information Council Foundation, Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety and Health provides "guiding principles" for all communicators. That document was originally published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and was elaborated on in a referenced white paper, IFIC Review: How to Understand and Interpret Food and Health-Related Scientific Studies.
These Guidelines from both sides of the Atlantic offer more than admonitions to communicators; they provide reasonable "how to" steps that can improve the quality of science communication in an era when sound bites and headlines seem to rule the day. Consumers, often confused by conflicting scientific stories in the media, can only benefit from any attempt to clarify the issues.
Summary Checklist for Print and Broadcast Journalists
Credibility of sources
- Have the findings been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
- Do the researchers have an established track record in the field and are they based at a reputable institution or organization?
- What are the affiliations of the researchers?
Procedures and methods
- Were the research methods appropriate?
- What do other professionals in the field think of the methods?
Findings and conclusions
- Is this really a "breakthrough?"
Significance of findings
- Are the findings preliminary or inconclusive?
- Do the findings differ markedly from those of previous studies?
- Do these findings appear to contradict mainstream scientific opinion?
- Are these findings based on small or unrepresentative samples?
- If the conclusions are from animal studies can they be generalized to humans?
- Have the researchers found only a statistical correlation?
Communicating risk
- Has the risk been expressed in absolute as well as relative terms?
- Can the risk be compared with anything else?
- Have the researchers been asked, "How safe is it? Instead of "is it safe?"
Anticipating impact
- Will the report cause undue anxiety or optimism among audiences or readers?
- Have important caveats been prominently included?
Role of specialist correspondents and editors
- What do specialist journalists think about the report?
Role of sub-editors
- Is the headline a fair reflection of the report?
- Is the caption a fair reflection of the report?
Expert contacts
- What do other professionals in the field think of the research?
Summary Checklist for Science and Health Professionals
Dealing with the media
- Should I talk to journalists about my work?
- Who can give me advice about dealing with the media?
Credibility
- Have I mentioned whether the study has been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal?
- Have I mentioned that the results have yet to be
replicated?
- Have I mentioned that the results differ markedly from those of previous studies?
- Have I mentioned that the findings are derived from samples that may be too small or unrepresentative?
- Have I mentioned that the findings are based entirely on animal studies?
- Have I mentioned that the findings are based only on correlation?
Accuracy
- Have I exaggerated the significance of the findings?
- Are there other possible interpretations of the results?
- Have I made speculations on the basis of opinions or beliefs that are not related to the study itself?
Communication of risk and benefits
- Have I cited the absolute risks as well as the relative risks?
- Have I warned of drawing the wrong conclusions about the risk?
- Can the risk be compared with anything else?
- Could the reporting of my work lead to undue anxiety or optimism among audiences or readers?
Is it safe?
- Have I explained properly why it is not possible to offer an assurance of absolute safety?
- Should I complain (if the research is inaccurately reported)?
Source: Guidelines on Science and Health Communication. The Royal Institution of Great Britain; Social Issues Research Centre; the Royal Society. November 2001.
