Three-parent babies eat Frankenstein meat!

12 Apr

A few weeks ago, we got  a visit in the newsroom from some scientists who wanted to shout at us.

Well, not quite: in fact, they were press officers from the Science Media Centre, an organisation that “works to promote the voices, stories and views of the UK scientific community to the news media when science is in the headlines”, and they were very friendly. But they were worried about the kind of language that journalists use “when science is in the headlines”. You know the kind of thing: “Trials of GM crops bring new fears of ‘Frankenstein’ food“. “Could Chinese herbs and coffee cure cancer?“.

We came in for our fair share of both praise and criticism. As the SMC saw it, tabloids and broadsheets both seemed to swing between responsible reporting and outrageous sensationalism almost by the day, with, on occasion, the redtops doing a more even-handed job of reporting a new breakthrough than the more august papers.

We had a lively exchange of views about a lot of subjects; it wasn’t just a lecture. The SMC were interested to talk to subs and section editors and find out what happens to a story after it enters the production process.

We talked about how a responsible science reporter will often need to temper a non-specialist news editor’s enthusiasm for a story that the latter doesn’t fully understand – “negative pitching”, as one of our correspondents calls it. This is a phenomenon almost unknown to journalists as a rule; they usually have to talk their leads up as far as they will go in news meetings to get any space in the paper at all. But conscientious medical writers often have conversations with news editors that go something like: “You mean just drinking coffee and eating these herbs can cure cancer? THEY’VE PROVED IT? HOLD THE…” “No, it’s not as simple as that … Don’t put it on the front: I reckon it’s worth a page lead further back in home. It’s only a preliminary test on mice, and mice aren’t people.”

The SMC, because they are neither active scientists nor working journalists, are happy to tread the middle ground between researchers’ grumpiness about trite phrases and subs’ need to write headlines in small spaces. Some scientists object to the phrase “three-parent babies” used in connection with injecting donor DNA into embryos to cure mitochondrial disease. The SMC told us that they were grumbling: “It’s only a tiny bit of material”. Our regressive hack’s headline-writing instincts aroused, we said: yes, a tiny bit of material … from someone else.

We agreed to disagree about that. But, in truth, there was little to argue about when it came to the SMC’s best practice guidelines for reporting science and health stories, reproduced here:

  • State the source of the story – eg interview, conference, journal article, a survey from a charity or trade body, etc, ideally with enough information for readers to look it up or a web link.
  • Specify the size and nature of the study – eg who/what were the subjects, how long did it last, what was tested or was it an observation? If space, mention the major limitations.
  • When reporting a link between two things, indicate whether or not there is evidence that one causes the other.
  • Give a sense of the stage of the research – eg cells in a laboratory or trials in humans – and a realistic timeframe for any new treatment or technology.
  • On health risks, include the absolute risk whenever it is available in the press release or the research paper – ie if “cupcakes double cancer risk” state the outright risk of that cancer, with and without cupcakes.
  • Especially on a story with public health implications, try to frame a new finding in the context of other evidence – eg does it reinforce or conflict with previous studies? If it attracts serious scientific concerns, they should not be ignored.
  • If space, quote both the researchers themselves and external sources with appropriate expertise. Be wary of scientists and press releases over-claiming for studies.
  • Headlines should not mislead the reader about a story’s contents and quotation marks should not be used to dress up overstatement.*
And the two big ones that they were really keen for us to take away from the meeting:
  • Distinguish between findings and interpretation or extrapolation; don’t suggest health advice if none has been offered.
  • Remember the patients: don’t call something a “cure” that is not a cure.
*Of course, quotation marks should not be used to dress up overstatement in any headline; that’s not what quotation marks in headlines are for.

4 Responses to “Three-parent babies eat Frankenstein meat!”

  1. Picky April 13, 2013 at 11:23 am #

    It’s very sound stuff, isn’t it. No doubt some of this advice will stick in the minds of specialist reporters, subs, and editors, but can you tell us whether it is being left like that, or whether the guvnors at that mighty organ the Metropolis Tribune are planning to follow this through in any way?

    • edlatham April 13, 2013 at 11:42 am #

      Well, the Tribune came in for praise for its existing editorial structure, which features fairly sensible reporters (as the SMC sees it) and a doctor of evolutionary genetics on the newsdesk who handles the copy and does a lot of the “negative pitching”. This was more of a self-organised thing by the subs, and also a two-way teach-in for the SMC, who are now starting to realise that they need to be talking to production staff. No formal recommendations from them yet, but there may be soon.

      • Picky April 13, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

        Ta for that. Be good to hear if next steps follow, because it seems to me we all sort of latch on to what they are saying, but in the heat of getting another coffee from the machine one small aspect or another can sometimes be overlooked. Worth recording, though, that the Tribune is, as one would expect, a generally good egg in this regard.


  1. The weak and the strong | Ten minutes past deadline - April 14, 2013

    […] of the things we talked about a few weeks ago when the Science Media Centre came to visit was the Andrew Wakefield MMR controversy, which seems to be back with a vengeance this weekend. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: