tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/science-reporting-11513/articlesScience reporting – The Conversation2020-09-17T04:27:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1463942020-09-17T04:27:27Z2020-09-17T04:27:27Z‘Science is political’: Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden over Trump for president. Australia should take note<p>In an unprecedented step, prestigious science publication <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scientific-American">Scientific American</a> has <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/">launched</a> a scathing attack on President Donald Trump and endorsed his opponent, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, in the upcoming US election. It’s the first presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.</p>
<p>To this, we say: about bloody time! As we’ve <a href="https://theconversation.com/gentlemens-rules-are-out-scientists-its-time-to-unleash-the-beast-729">noted before</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Science is political. The science we do is inherently shaped by the funding landscape of government and the problems and issues of society. This means that to have any influence on how science is organised and funded in Australia (or the US or any other country), we as scientists and science communicators must act in ways that matter in the arena of politics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s now more critical than ever, as the editors at Scientific American clearly lay out, that the people who are actually knowledgeable about the world’s crises <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-politicians-listen-to-scientists-we-all-benefit-74443">speak out and represent</a> that knowledge (or “<a href="https://medium.com/the-science-collective/individual-intelligence-vs-collective-wisdom-ddce5fe42ed">collective wisdom</a>”) in public, out loud and with their names attached.</p>
<p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/14/trump-wildfires-climate-change-coronavirus-collins-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn">Under Trump</a>, science isn’t just ignored. It is lampooned and <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science">directly attacked</a>, especially on issues such as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940">climate change</a> and the coronavirus pandemic. This actively threatens <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/04/02/is-donald-trump-criminally-responsible-for-coronavirus-deaths/">the lives</a> (and livelihoods) of not just millions of Americans, but countless others around the world. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vfLZOkn0chc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has shown blatant disregard for scientific recommendations and has actively peddled misinformation, such as when he suggested UV light could be used to treat patients.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Respect the messenger</h2>
<p>In the past, <a href="https://theconversation.com/distrust-of-experts-happens-when-we-forget-they-are-human-beings-76219">it has been suggested</a> scientists who comment beyond their specific, narrow sphere of reach by delving into politics are tainting their credibility – perhaps even behaving unethically. </p>
<p>But as we now stare down the barrel of an ongoing global pandemic (and relentless climate change continuing in the background), to remain quiet on the politics is not just unethical, but actively dangerous.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-big-environment-stories-you-probably-missed-while-youve-been-watching-coronavirus-135364">5 big environment stories you probably missed while you've been watching coronavirus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The argument that science is somehow tainted by offering policy or political opinions is an idea <a href="https://theconversation.com/distrust-of-experts-happens-when-we-forget-they-are-human-beings-76219">whose time has long gone</a>. </p>
<p>Who is better placed to add valuable weight to public debates about the key problems we’re facing, than those who represent the voice of evidence, reason and debate (such as Scientific American)? </p>
<p>As one of us <a href="https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/16/01/JCOM_1601_2017_C01">has previously argued</a>, in Australia we should encourage scientists and science communicators to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Become more active in challenging the status quo, or to help support those who wish to by engendering a professional environment that encourages risk-taking and speaking out in public about critical social issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>It’s the principle, not the votes</h2>
<p>Scientific American is not entirely alone in pushing for the involvement of scientists in public policy and action. Other reputable publications have taken similar stances in the past. </p>
<p>In 2017, <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/why-researchers-should-resolve-to-engage-in-2017-1.21236">Nature argued</a> “debates over climate change and genome editing present the need for researchers to venture beyond their comfort zones to engage with citizens”. Earlier in 2012, <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/a-vote-for-science-1.11634">Nature explicitly endorsed</a> Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. </p>
<p>In Australia, our news publications have a tradition of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/20/very-australian-coup-murdoch-turnbull-political-death-news-corps">endorsing political parties</a> at federal elections, but our science publishing landscape has typically remained agnostic. </p>
<p>Peak bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science, and Science and Technology Australia, have <a href="https://www.science.org.au/academy-newsletter/australian-academy-science-newsletter-104/academy-urges-political-parties">commented</a> on the political decision-making process, but have rarely been so forthright as the Scientific American’s recent editorial.</p>
<p>Not only should scientists take a stand, they should also be encouraged and professionally acknowledged for it. </p>
<p>Scientists as citizens have the right to advocate for political positions and figures that support the best possible evidence. In fact, when it comes to matters as serious as COVID-19 and climate change, we believe they have an obligation to.</p>
<p>Scientific American’s intervention may not impact votes, but that’s not the point. The point is it’s crucial for people who believe in knowledge and expertise to stand up and call out misinformation for what it is. To do less is to accept the current state. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Editor in Chief of Scientific American Laura Helmuth speaking to an audience." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358510/original/file-20200917-14-1nsaqow.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Laura Helmuth is the ninth and current Editor in Chief of the Scientific American magazine. She was appointed to the role in April this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1249754585822121990">@webmz_/Twitter</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Australia’s work in progress</h2>
<p>Nonetheless, many scientists in Australia rely on government funding. This can make it difficult to speak up when legitimate evidence clashes with the orientation of the government of the day. Confronted with the possible loss of funding, what can a scientist do? </p>
<p>There’s no perfect solution. Many may feel the risks of speaking are too great. For many, they will be. </p>
<p>In such cases, scientists could perhaps look for intermediaries to make their case on their behalf – whether these are trustworthy journalists, or publicly visible academics like us. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-shocking-detail-on-how-australias-environmental-scientists-are-being-silenced-140026">Research reveals shocking detail on how Australia's environmental scientists are being silenced</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the long term, defending those who have gone out of their way to act responsibly will help. The more this becomes normal, the more likely it will become the norm. But it’s also an unfortunate reality that change rarely occurs without discomfort. </p>
<p>When it comes to truly world-shaking crises like COVID-19 and climate change, scientists are political citizens like everyone else. And just like everyone else, they need to weigh the price of action against the price of inaction. </p>
<p>Speaking out can’t always be someone else’s job.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has previously received funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump doesn’t just ignore science, he attacks it. Australia’s experts have an obligation to speak out on crises such as the coronavirus pandemic, even if it means picking a side in our politics.Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityWill J Grant, Senior Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/689202017-02-16T19:13:53Z2017-02-16T19:13:53ZEssays on health: reporting medical news is too important to mess up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157081/original/image-20170216-27423-8dmkg5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stories in the media are often the first or even the only way that people hear about science and medical news. So we need to get the reporting right. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/352247702?src=j1OSqT6u6IAZFyvqiFnVPQ-1-30&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>News stories regarding the latest in the world of medicine are often popular. After all, most people are interested in their own health and that of their family and friends. </p>
<p>But sometimes reports can be confusing. For example, one minute <a href="https://theconversation.com/coffee-good-today-bad-tomorrow-15707">coffee seems good for you, and the next it’s bad for your health</a>. And remember when <a href="http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/your-voice/open-letter-to-world-health-organisation-re-olympics-and-zika-virus">150 health experts</a> from around the world called for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games to be cancelled or postponed because of the Zika virus? This call was swiftly opposed by both the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/zika-health-advice-olympics/en/">World Health Organisation (WHO)</a> and the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0713-paralympic-games-risks.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>. </p>
<p>Sometimes these contradictions reflect differences of opinion in the scientific community, and different approaches to research. These are a normal part of the scientific process. </p>
<p>But in other instances, health news misinforms because of the way some journalists interpret and report research findings. </p>
<h2>Lost in translation</h2>
<p>The reporter’s job is to speak to sources, look critically at both sides of a debate and write a story that is balanced, factual and accurate. </p>
<p>In medical health news, reporters also have to make sense of complex scientific data and present it in a way that everyone can understand. </p>
<p>However, in the hands of inexperienced reporters, the true meaning of medical research may get lost in translation. Rather than inform or educate accurately, stories may exaggerate and mislead. These shortcomings can be a problem as the public usually first hears about the latest scientific findings regarding advances in health and medicine from the news media. </p>
<p>Stories can end up generating <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2015.1045237?scroll=top&needAccess=true">false hopes or unfounded fears</a>. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1326365X16669194">These can range widely</a>, from stories about clinical hands-on practice to research, or from disease prevention to new drugs and techniques, or health risks to health policy. </p>
<p>Given the potential for medical reporting to have powerful effects on the public, it’s important reporters understand science – its language, processes and topics – before they translate the information for everyone else. Having enough background knowledge and experience will <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1326365X16669194">prevent being misled</a> by unfamiliar claims and assertions. </p>
<h2>The power of a good story</h2>
<p>Reporters have to make their articles and news items appealing and interesting to a lay audience. That means a story based mainly on dry lab results often needs some compelling storytelling to capture the public’s attention. </p>
<p>A common journalistic technique is to insert a personal account from patients or others to tell the story and “humanise” it for readers, listeners or viewers. Individual anecdotes are one of the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2012.721633?scroll=top&needAccess=true">tools journalists use</a> to promote audience understanding of complex health issues. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Giving a human face to diseases like chicken pox can help journalists tell a story more effectively.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepies/3539476944/in/photolist-6oLKby-JXHu9-6mFiYQ-aq9X-JXHb9-7PpY4m-76Wbk8-77164L-7715EL-a8cGic-fASSr-fASWK-fASQX-JXJEf-t4YorZ-t4VSjH-s87wsp-s7VLxb-55b916-t4VUFg-81omC-6CMRTA-aEATt-7CxoC5-dEgCw3-dEgCHS-5qwURW-aeA4Yg-8euJyR-6e7yK5-9dHMfv-dTq5A3-cgheqA-d1kv5-9ubDSZ-76W8YP-chAB4C-55baCi-ci5FAQ-ci5Ebs-Kmp7q-6CHH8D-cghfnj-dEbfDD-5MRzpD-chBazS-55bcT2-chB8z5-chB9qb-ciCtg7">sheepies/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, despite being a useful device in complicated medical news, putting a “face” on scientific facts and figures without further context may only serve to skew the story’s content and quality. When this happens <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/16/1/85/527341/Does-qualitative-synthesis-of-anecdotal-evidence">the public can be swayed to change health behaviours</a> on the basis of a lay person’s account rather than by the weight of scientific evidence. </p>
<p>Avoiding single source stories and including an independent “expert” can counter some common failings in health news. Experienced medical reporters also know <a href="https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S3-S3">asking the “right” questions</a> of sources will avoid some rookie misunderstandings. </p>
<h2>Common problems in medical reporting</h2>
<p>A public online monitoring site used ten criteria to <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/11/deconstructing-cancer-what-makes-good-quality-news-story">assess the quality of Australian health stories</a> in print, online and TV media from 2004-2013. These included </p>
<ul>
<li>whether the treatment was “genuinely new” in Australia</li>
<li>that alternative options were mentioned</li>
<li>that there was objective evidence to support any treatments mentioned</li>
<li>how benefits and harms were framed (in relative or absolute terms)</li>
<li>harms and costs of treatments were discussed</li>
<li>sources and their conflicts of interests disclosed</li>
<li>whether or not there was “heavy” reliance on media release information provided by PR (public relations) practitioners, who often represent clients with vested interests. </li>
</ul>
<p>This analysis revealed reporters portrayed new devices, drugs and medical interventions positively, while potential harms were downplayed and costs often ignored. </p>
<p>Potential sources’ conflicts of interest are often ignored by reporters. For example, the 2009 swine ‘flu pandemic in Australia resulted in mass vaccination roll out in this country. But <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884913480460">some reporters</a> covering this public health crisis revealed they hadn’t considered asking about conflicts of interest of their expert sources - such as any potential links with the vaccine manufacturer - as part of their interviewing process. This is despite the fact <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884913480460">some public health experts were concerned</a> about others who had conflicts of interest yet were providing comments to the media. </p>
<p>It seems reliance and trust in officials and experts <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884913480460">may be greater</a> in cases of emerging risks. </p>
<h2>Big stories create powerful waves</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s common knowledge Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to reduce her risk of breast cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/363240596?size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Large-scale publicity about celebrity illnesses have often led to an increased knowledge of certain diseases. For example, actor Angelina Jolie’s preventative double mastectomy significantly raised <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2014.995866">public awareness of “breast cancer genes”</a>.</p>
<p>However, news reports can also have the opposite effect, introducing doubt and even mistrust of existing medical practice. When the ABC’s science program <a href="https://theconversation.com/viewing-catalysts-cholesterol-programs-through-the-sceptometer-19817">Catalyst</a> questioned the link between high cholesterol and heart disease in a 2013 two-part report, there was a <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/11/crux-matter-did-abcs-catalyst-program-change-statin-use-australia">significant drop in community use</a> of cholesterol lowering medications known as statins. Statins are the most commonly prescribed medications in Australia for those aged over 50. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm">Critics</a> described the ABC program as “unscientific” and “irresponsibly misleading”. </p>
<p>Adverse reports in the media about the effects of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) in menopausal women also caused a <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7419/845">dramatic drop</a> in use. </p>
<p>There’s some evidence even media coverage of as little as one to two days’ duration can affect the public’s health-related behaviours. For example, even brief television news coverage of iodine deficiency disorder - which can cause brain damage in children - resulted in a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/her/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/her/cym028">significant increase</a> in the sale of iodised salt in Australia. So it matters how health news is written and presented. </p>
<h2>Peer review doesn’t mean it’s perfect</h2>
<p>Reporters are usually well trained to be inherently sceptical of claims being made by government or industry. Yet when it comes to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-peer-review-27797">peer review process</a> in published research, especially in prestigious medical journals, there’s an inclination by some to swallow the information “hook, line and sinker”. </p>
<p>But there’s a fine line between doing a positive story and becoming an inadvertent cheerleader. When dealing with such respected sources, which are often regarded as infallible, reporters’ attitudes have been described as “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.1.057">uncritical reverence</a>”. Even top journals get things wrong. </p>
<p>Remember the controversial study which linked the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine to autism published by highly respected journal The Lancet in 1998? It took twelve years to retract the article. Yet public health repercussions are ongoing, with some still refusing to vaccinate their children despite many studies discrediting the original research. It seems “<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084500-warning-wakefields-anti-vax-film-may-make-you-sick/">it’s easier to scare, than unscare people</a>”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There is no evidence linking Measles Mumps Rubella vaccination with autism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbybatchelder/4038220707/in/photolist-stMHy6-mLdEQv-4RyMov-mLfshS-ngzgyQ-76JgQz-sck8bR-HUFNeF-PbUzCs-79QWjX-76NxrC">abbybatchelder/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science does benefit from media coverage</h2>
<p>Like government and business, medical journals send out media releases to alert journalists about the latest research, breakthrough or discovery. Often there’s a <a href="http://ebm.bmj.com/content/19/3/81.full">tendency in the media release</a> to exaggerate the importance of the research to attract the reporters’ attention, overstating the study’s significance. </p>
<p>Scientists also stand to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2013.811327?scroll=top&needAccess=true">directly benefit</a> from positive news stories. Media coverage can increase scientists’ citation rates (a measure of how widely read their research is), raising their public profiles and improving funding opportunities for their research. If reporters suspend their usual scepticism and watchdog vigilance, this can lead to stories which may simply promote research that is either premature with no immediate benefit for public health, or may never eventuate beyond the animal testing stage. </p>
<p>This concern is nothing new. Almost 16 years ago, the Australian Press Council (a self regulatory body of the print media) <a href="https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/Australia-APC-Reporting-Guidelines">warned about</a> “inadequately researched” health news stories and their effect on the public. </p>
<p>In the US, a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265160490908086?scroll=top&needAccess=true">statement of “principles”</a> was set up to guide medical health reporters and lift standards and quality. These codes emphasise the need for journalists to understand the process of medical research in order to accurately report it. </p>
<p>For example, it’s <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265160490908086?scroll=top&needAccess=true">important to understand the differences</a> between <a href="https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/what-clinical-trial/phases-clinical-trials">Phases I, II, and III</a> of drug trials. </p>
<h3>Phase I clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase I trials test a new biomedical intervention for the first time in a small group of people (around 20-80) to evaluate safety.</p>
<h3>Phase II clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase II trials study an intervention in a larger group of people (several hundred) to determine whether it works as intended, and to further evaluate safety.</p>
<h3>Phase III clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase III studies examine the efficacy of an intervention in large groups of trial participants (from several hundred to several thousand) by comparing the intervention to other treatments (or to standard care), and to collect additional safety information.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Effective medical reporting does not require becoming a cheerleader for science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/85329395@N04/8398076849/in/photolist-dN7kEr-8rdW-eiChjS-eiwwPe-eiwwMz-6X9rAi-6WRqjq-6WMsfz-pDDGEQ-28eRF-6XPceD-6XTejd-6XTcQL-cQ7HzJ-6XPbJZ-6XPcpe-6XPbUZ-6Btbu-6WLWh6-6WQQBL-79GFM1-P2KxD-5yHY9x-4Mc8sX-6XTevo-6XTeWd-rEh6N-4fb7cJ-rz8CU-kZasi-5ZTMH7-6DckVn-7aNb5J-5yUCae-4fb6Uh-o6RNZ-5ZTML1-5ZTMSd-angtbB-6XfbCS-74gTEM-5BVUC2-558YfE-C5LU-aDksdP-5ZPzDi-6WRoyh-B3bEYV-4Mgi1q-7WcqyF">85329395@N04/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265160490908086">area of misunderstanding</a> regards <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/03/15/absolute-versus-relative-risk-making-sense-of-media-stories/">“absolute” and “relative” risks</a>. A 50% increase in relative risk <a href="http://patient.info/health/absolute-risk-and-relative-risk">may not mean much if the absolute numbers are small</a>. For example, let’s say some women have a four in 100 chance of getting a particular disease by the time they’re 65. Recent medical research claims a new drug will reduce the relative risk of getting this condition by 50%. Sounds like a big deal, doesn’t it? </p>
<p>But 50% is the reduction of relative risk and refers only to the effect on the number four. Half of four is two. So the absolute risk, which is the actual risk of contracting this disease, is reduced from four in 100, to two in 100, which is a <a href="http://patient.info/health/absolute-risk-and-relative-risk">fairly minor reduction</a> for each individual. Not presenting this accurately can lead to hyperbole in the media.</p>
<h2>We need specialist medical reporters</h2>
<p>Medical health news is important, as this is how most of us first hear about the latest research, interventions, devices, drugs, surgical techniques and risks. It can influence us to change attitudes and behaviours. It can <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-theres-hope-but-treating-spinal-injuries-with-stem-cells-is-not-a-reality-yet-72493">catapult scientists into the public eye</a> with many benefits for them. </p>
<p>But as with other specialised reporting, medical writing can take a long time to master. Although you don’t have to be a scientist to report well in this area, it’s important to understand the language used by scientists. This allows a reporter to challenge claims being made by them. How big is the study? Who funded it? How much does it cost? What are the side effects? Inexperienced journalists may not spot all the subtleties of the scientific process, but asking the “right” questions can only help, not hinder, public understanding.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrizia Furlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Health reporting requires asking the right questions and doing quality research. But specialist skills are also handy, especially when it comes to knowing the language and processes of science.Patrizia Furlan, Program Director, Journalism and Professional Writing, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/720742017-01-31T00:34:57Z2017-01-31T00:34:57ZWhy the media need to tread carefully when reporting research findings<p>Last week, the <a href="http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/honour-roll/?view=fullView&recipientID=1856">Australian of the Year</a> was awarded to biomedical scientist and stem cell researcher Alan Mackay-Sim. To have a scientist recognised for such a prestigious award was extraordinary, especially during such a challenging time for <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-07/lack-of-funding-sees-scientists-leaving-labs-in-droves/7996604">research in Australia</a> and <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture">globally</a>.</p>
<p>Alas, there was barely time for the firework smoke to clear and Australia Day hangovers to subside before <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australia-day-honours/poles-apart-australian-of-the-year-alan-mackaysim-in-row-over-who-helped-man-walk/news-story/f9cf24b0d42ea8657d0f2da3002870fb">criticisms emerged</a> and accusations were made that Professor Mackay-Sim had played no role in the scientific miracle that saw a paralysed man walk again.</p>
<p>While the types of cells used were similar (stem cells taken from the nose), the team responsible for the “miracle” say Mackay-Sim’s work <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australia-day-honours/poles-apart-australian-of-the-year-alan-mackaysim-in-row-over-who-helped-man-walk/news-story/f9cf24b0d42ea8657d0f2da3002870fb">did not inform</a> their own. Mackay-Sim <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/australia-day-honours/australian-of-the-year-to-play-down-role-in-breakthrough-case/news-story/abb6a923ea549051a1e43b05a8560873">has reportedly vowed</a> to make this clear over the course of his duties as Australian of the Year.</p>
<h2>Is basic research front-page news?</h2>
<p>While it’s unlikely we will ever know how his role was so misconstrued, the exaggeration and inflation of fundamental results is a common story. Any scientist with media experience is likely to have a horror story to share, of mistruths and misconceptions of the impact of their research being aired publicly as breaking news. </p>
<p>Almost <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/lung-cancer-breakthrough-made-by-australian-scientists-20170127-gtzxp7.html">weekly</a> we hear of another “ground-breaking cancer treatment breakthrough”, but how many make it to the clinic, and how many will actually help patients? The honest answer is: very few. Even if treatments survive the scientific rigour of laboratory trials, the path to clinical trials is long and expensive, with most lost along the way.</p>
<p>How often do scientists get to speak freely about their (often life-long) contribution, without expectation of an outcome, without making a pill or device? How often do they get to say: “I contributed knowledge to a pathway that may help us to treat a wide range of diseases, but it’s still many years away”? Rarely, if ever. </p>
<p>After all, finding the cause is the first step towards finding the cure. Unfortunately, describing how something happens or works is far less sexy and attracts far less attention than “curing cancer”, “reversing infertility” or “helping a paralysed man walk again”.</p>
<p>As scientists, we can most often predict the pressing questions from the media: “When will we see the first trials?” or “How soon do you think this will be helping patients?”. But the answers aren’t simple, or worthy of front-page news. It’s a long road, perhaps <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n8/fig_tab/nrd2030_I1.html">20 years</a>, from many laboratory discoveries to a product.</p>
<h2>Inflation of the facts helps no one</h2>
<p>As I heard the story, I had immediate empathy and compassion for Mackay-Sim. After all, the Australian of the Year isn’t a science award, it’s an award that recognises contribution. And I’m certain there’s absolutely no question among scientists that Mackay-Sim is worthy of a contribution award. </p>
<p>But the empathy was more personal. I, too, know the experience of a media frenzy following a “breakthrough” discovery, which left patients (perhaps) more hopeful than they should be, and me scrambling for answers. We had made a great discovery, but one that required far more research before it would ever be ready for patients.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154686/original/image-20170130-27039-1wphrpb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Over-inflation of research findings can give false hope to desperate people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Advertiser/Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To the media, <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/fertility-breakthrough-adelaide-research-shows-how-to-fix-womens-lowquality-eggs/news-story/017eda1e018c1eabf0095b10ae8b19a8">we had cured infertility</a>, reversed ageing and were changing the face of fertility treatment in Australia. I received thousands of emails from desperate couples hoping to benefit from my research findings: from women who had received radiation as teenagers, saving them from cancer, but rendering them infertile as adults; from parents, whose children were unable to conceive; from business execs who had “waited too long”. </p>
<p>I was temporarily traumatised, but realised my role as a scientist meant working hard both towards fundamental discovery and towards translating and communicating those discoveries to the media and the public.</p>
<h2>What causes this inflation?</h2>
<p>The pressure to perform as an Australian scientist is greater than ever, with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-26/australias-medical-research-funding-by-the-numbers/8215016">research funds scarce</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html">jobs on the line</a>. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funds scientists for three to five years at a time, which is considerably shorter than the time taken to turn a fundamental discovery into a treatment or cure. </p>
<p>As scientists, we are encouraged to think big, to elaborate on the “clinical relevance” and “translation capacity” of our research in every application, even though this may be many years away. </p>
<p>When combined with a front-page story, research that “looks promising in animal models” can easily become “is ready for clinical trial”. While to the average person that may seem like a small jump, it may be a decade in reality. Add an emotive interview or photo, a sick child or young couple plagued by infertility who are “hopeful this breakthrough will help” them, and you have a recipe for exaggeration.</p>
<h2>Some important lessons</h2>
<p>The most important lesson here for scientists is learning how to engage effectively with the media. Now, more than ever, in a world filled with “fake news”, it’s up to researchers to work hard to have accurate messages publicised. Be positive about the future, but also honest about what this discovery means and how likely it is the research will translate into outcomes.</p>
<p>And the media need to provide a place for open and honest dialogue, for conversation and exchange. Ask about the next steps. Is more laboratory testing required? How long has it taken to get to this point? Do we know if it’s safe? What would it take to make this a treatment or cure? </p>
<p>And if the research was performed in animals, then say so. And remember, “world first” is exactly that, the first time it has occurred, meaning the end goal may be out of reach, for now.</p>
<p>And readers need to ask questions, be sceptical and engaged. Be involved, check out <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-citizen-science-16487">citizen science</a>, and contribute to Australia’s vibrant science community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Hannah Brown receives funding from the NHMRC for fundamental discovery into programming of adult disease in the peri-conception period. The views expressed here are her own.</span></em></p>Now, more than ever, in a world filled with ‘fake news’, it’s up to researchers to work hard to have accurate messages publicised.Hannah Brown, Post-doctoral Fellow; Reproductive Epigenetics, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/688082016-11-25T04:41:16Z2016-11-25T04:41:16ZResearch Check: can eating aged cheese help you age well?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146712/original/image-20161121-25642-enia5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A compound found in aged cheese has been linked to better ageing processes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most people are interested in how to slow the ageing process, or at least they get more interested as the years tick by. So when new research promises to have discovered the secret, which happens to include eating more of a food that tastes great but often appears on “eat less” food lists, it is bound to make the headlines.</p>
<p>According to a recent article in <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/nutrition/aged-cheese-could-help-you-age-well-20161114-gsp5m0.html">The Sydney Morning Herald</a>, “aged cheese could help you age well”. The article was based on research published in the journal <a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.4222.html">Nature Medicine</a>. It showed that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermidine">spermidine</a> – a compound found in aged cheese, legumes and whole grains – could extend the life of mice when added to their drinking water. </p>
<p>A separate study within the Nature Medicine paper looked at the diets of around 800 Italians. It concluded that those who had a high spermidine intake had lower blood pressure and a 40% lower risk of heart failure and other heart diseases.</p>
<p>So if the newspaper report is accurate, then it would be time to get out the cheese and crackers. But before the party starts, let’s take a closer look at the original paper, in which cheese plays a very small, almost insignificant, part.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147527/original/image-20161125-15348-1ulznbl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Spermidine</h2>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermidine">Spermidine</a> is a naturally occurring compound originally found, as its name suggests, in semen. It is present throughout the human body and plays a vital role in cell survival. Studies have shown spermidine supplements can extend the lifespan of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801973">worms, flies and yeast</a>. </p>
<p>The Nature Medicine paper is a series of several studies and analyses in mice, rats and humans. </p>
<h2>Studies in mice</h2>
<p>The first study compared the effects of adding spermidine, or the related compound spermine, to drinking water in mice, and the effects of not doing so; for either their whole life or starting only at middle age. Researchers found adding the compounds increased lifespan: good news if you are a mouse. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146719/original/image-20161121-4528-toqrb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two groups of mice were tested for spermidine’s effects on different health measures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The next analysis is bad news for mice. Researchers looked for the development of tumours related to ageing in the mice in the first study and found no difference between the supplemented and unsupplemented mice. </p>
<p>This meant the supplement in the water didn’t prevent tumours mice get due to ageing. The conclusion then drawn was that the longer life seen in the first study was not due to cancer prevention. </p>
<p>There was not much difference in the heart tissue between groups that had spermidine and those that didn’t. So researchers looked more broadly at heart characteristics and found the hearts in the supplemented group were structurally more healthy. </p>
<p>There were a number of other comparisons that looked at hearts in mice.</p>
<h2>The rat study</h2>
<p>In the rat study, <a href="http://www.criver.com/products-services/basic-research/find-a-model/dahl-salt-sensitive-(dahl-ss)-rat">salt-sensitive Dahl rats</a> – a type bred to develop high blood pressure when fed a high-salt diet – were given food really high in salt. Half of the rats had spermidine added to their drinking water and half did not. </p>
<p>From weeks nine to 15 of the study, the rats in the spermidine group had significantly lower blood pressure compared to the others. But at the end of the study there was not much difference between the two groups. </p>
<h2>The human study</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146720/original/image-20161121-4547-agl0jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The diets of 100 Italians were put under the microscope.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the final human analysis, researchers recorded the diets of more than 800 Italians at three time points (1995, 2000 and 2005) and the number of heart-related events they experienced. These were high blood pressure, heart failure, stroke and premature death from heart disease over the 15 years from 1995 to 2010. </p>
<p>The study found about a 40% lower risk of heart failure, both fatal and non-fatal, among those with the highest spermidine intakes compared to those with the lowest. It also found a significantly lower risk of any heart disease – based on a composite score that included acute coronary artery disease, stroke, high blood pressure and death from vascular disease – among those with the highest versus lowest spermidine intakes.</p>
<p>Of greatest relevance to this analysis is that the biggest contributor to spermidine intakes in this cohort was wholemeal foods, accounting for 13.4% of intake. Next were apples and pears (13.3%), salad (9.8%), vegetable sprouts (7.3%) and potatoes (6.4%). Aged cheese was listed sixth and accounted for only 2.9% of estimated spermidine intake.</p>
<h2>What can we take from it?</h2>
<p>This extensive body of work is a credit to the researchers involved and does suggest that, at least for mice and rats, investigating the health-promoting effects of spermidine is worthwhile. However, the animal studies were small – with fewer than 15 animals per group – and the number of analyses done increases the potential for some findings to occur by chance. </p>
<p>When analysing <em>differences between groups</em>, as the mouse research in this paper did, one cannot claim spermidine changed a particular value – such as heart muscle strength – in the animals. This is because their heart muscles were not measured before they were given spermidine to compare the before and after effects, so you can only focus on differences between groups.</p>
<p>It’s better to say the outcome was higher or lower, or more or less frequent, in the spermidine-supplemented group compared to unsupplemented animals.</p>
<p>Of major importance in the human cohort study, which followed people for more than 15 years, is that it was <em>not</em> cheese that accounted for the majority of their spermidine intake. Also because this study was observational, it only showed associations, not cause and effect. </p>
<p>Also of note when you read the research is that, unlike the media report suggested, the mice were not fed cheese. A lot more research would be needed, and much more in humans, before claiming spermidine in cheese is the new superfood.</p>
<p>In the human study, although we weren’t told what the participants’ overall usual food habits were, we do know high intakes of whole grains, vegetables and fruit are characteristic of foods recommended for good health and longevity generally.</p>
<p>Try increasing your intakes of these foods and, for a variety of reasons, they’re very likely to help you age well. <strong>– Clare Collins</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Peer review</h2>
<p>The Nature Medicine paper found a correlation between the health of human participants and the amount of spermidine found in their diet. Unfortunately, although this part of the work is tantalising, it is still correlative: who knows whether there is some other ingredient in those foods that improves health, or whether people who preferred to eat those foods were already predisposed to better health?</p>
<p>The Nature Medicine paper also showed spermidine extended lifespans in mice. The animal studies were well performed and showed differences between groups in measures of heart function. But as the author of this Research Check states, a comparison where heart function would have been measured just before and just after drug treatment was not shown.</p>
<p>I believe this is okay, as animals were treated with spermidine for large proportions of their lifetimes, and such a comparison would have been confounded by the effects of ageing. So the comparisons between treated and untreated groups are adequate. </p>
<p>The key difficulty with moving spermidine forward is our understanding of how it works. Spermidine has been demonstrated to promote a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801973">process called autophagy</a>, where the cell literally eats part of itself. This is actually a very good thing. By breaking down parts of the cell, old machinery gets destroyed and is replaced by new cellular machinery. </p>
<p>Autophagy is turned on when we exercise or go on a diet, but turned off when we eat too much or sit on the couch, so this could be how spermidine is beneficial.</p>
<p>Scientists like to understand every fine detail of how drugs work. The precise molecular biology of spermidine, and in particular what parts of the cell it interacts with, are poorly understood. Once we know how this works better, spermidine could well find its way into a new therapy. <strong>– Lindsay Wu</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Collins is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She is an NHMRC Senior Research fellow. She has received funding from a range of research grants including NHMRC, ARC, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Horticulture Innovation Australia, Meat and Livestock Australia. She has consulted to SHINE Australia and Novo Nordisk. Clare Collins is a spokesperson for the Dietitians Association of Australia on some specific nutrition issues, including Australia's Healthy Weight Week.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lindsay Wu's lab receives funding from Cancer Institute NSW, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia, and MetroBiotech NSW Pty Ltd. He is a director of Metro Biotech NSW, Intravital Pty Ltd, and Liberty Biosecurity Pty Ltd, and is a shareholder in Intravital, EdenRoc Sciences, and Hydra Capital. His salary is supported by fellowships from Cancer Institute NSW and an RD Wright Biomedical Fellowship from the NHMRC. </span></em></p>Headlines screaming that aged cheese could be an aid to better ageing were based on a paper that didn’t test the effects of cheese on ageing.Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of NewcastleLindsay Wu, Senior Lecturer, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624352016-07-14T04:20:25Z2016-07-14T04:20:25ZAlzheimer’s breakthrough? Have we nearly cured dementia? Not just yet…<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130490/original/image-20160714-12377-1iswsux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Success in human drug development is painfully low.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>My mother-in-law called me yesterday. She doesn’t quite know what I do for a job but has a vague idea I work with <a href="https://aibl.csiro.au">a group seeking to understand</a> and ultimately prevent Alzheimer’s disease. </p>
<p>She heard on the radio that someone had developed a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. It had <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/dementia-vaccine-may-be-years-away-flinders-uni-professor-says/7623574">something to do with cars in the driveway</a> and the US government was bankrolling it. She was both pleased and relieved, and suggested I now focus my attention on other brain diseases that need to be cured.</p>
<p>She then sent me a link to the radio interview timed to coincide with the publication of research in Nature’s <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/srep28912">Scientific Reports journal</a>. The <a href="http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2016/07/13/progress-in-worlds-first-alzheimers-vaccine/">media release about the study</a>, like the radio interview my mother-in-law heard, was very excited. </p>
<p>It alerted us to an elegant set of experiments, based on technology from Flinders Medical Centre, that generated candidate vaccines against Alzheimer’s disease and which may therefore provide a treatment for dementia. According to one of the study’s authors, an effective vaccine could be only a few years away.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130496/original/image-20160714-12377-1249ogs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Media reports hailed a breakthrough in Alzheimer’s research this week.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/flinders-and-us-researchers-develop-vaccine-formulation-to-successfully-target-abnormal-proteins-that-trigger-alzheimers/news-story/527a44af85d96aa5cab876ed2428cfee">Adelaide Advertiser screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The vaccines, tested in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease and in human brain tissue, showed a high responsiveness to both targets in each context. This is indeed good news, and these compounds should be advanced to the drug-development pipeline as fast as possible. </p>
<p>But before we get too excited, it’s worth noting that for every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds that enter development pipelines, <a href="http://www.phrma.org/cost">only one drug will be approved</a> for use in patients, at an estimated cost of US$2.6 billion. </p>
<p>In Alzheimer’s disease specifically, 244 compounds were investigated in 413 clinical trials between 2002 and 2012. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4095696/?tool=pmcentrez">Of these, only one new drug was approved</a> for temporarily alleviating symptoms of the disease. That’s a success rate of 0.4%.</p>
<h2>Some facts about Alzheimer’s and dementia</h2>
<p>Doctors describe dementia as a phenomenon in which a person has <a href="https://fightdementia.org.au/about-dementia/what-is-dementia">difficulties across multiple areas of thinking</a>. It happens, for instance, when problems in planning, remembering, concentrating or navigating become so severe that the person’s health or ability to live independently is compromised. </p>
<p>In people aged over 65, the most common cause of dementia (around 70%) is Alzheimer’s disease. Older age is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer’s: <a href="https://fightdementia.org.au/about-us/media/key-facts-and-statistics">one in ten people</a> aged between 60 and 70, and three in ten over 80, meet clinical criteria for the disease. </p>
<p>Alzheimer’s disease is named after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Alzheimer">Alois Alzheimer</a>, who in 1906 conducted a post-mortem investigation of a woman who had died with dementia. Using dyes to stain brain cells, he observed two abnormal pathological characteristics – “plaques” and “tangles” – spread throughout the brain.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130492/original/image-20160714-12389-1dyxpyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tangles and plaques characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease are the target of most treatments in development.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nihgov/24545601231/in/photolist-6vsTk8-8EzRTu-dpXfJH-8Ezmxq-8EzS13-8Ez9YG-8EwGDv-zmXwp-dTW2xo-zmYU5-6LFzmh-zmYEJ-zn6nv-zn6qp-8Ezmnq-6vsQXp-8q6mb9-8Ez9VQ-8Ewc9D-8Ewc8t-8EwbYF-qjYrnS-8Eza31-6vsU1e-6tKBGN-8kwXDn-8Eza45-6tFtDe-6vsStK-8Eza1L-6tKBDm-6tFtDX-zn6oH-53VExt-6s3vrx-hWdkWk-53VES6-HVJ1yZ-6tFtEK-8b3hdB-757aEq-4xRA9y-62yAZT-641mWe-DmR9F-Cj4YNb-6GLpHa-rGvYYB-DGJvVv-Dp1C6e">NIH Image Gallery/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These plaques and tangles remain the targets of current research. In the 21st century, the plaques are known to consist of fragments of a protein called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27025652">beta-amyloid</a>, and the tangles are known as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471491415000581">tau proteins</a>.</p>
<p>With the average age of people in developed countries increasing, so too is the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease. The great emergency is that without a breakthrough treatment, the number of <a href="https://fightdementia.org.au/about-us/media/key-facts-and-statistics">people living with dementia in Australia</a> is expected to be almost 900,000 by 2050.</p>
<p>With growing populations this problem becomes greater still, so the <a href="http://alz.org/news_and_events_103631.asp">anticipated social and economic burden</a> is considered catastrophic. Consequently, the US federal government commits <a href="http://alz.org/news_and_events_103631.asp">US$991 million per year</a> to research and treat Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. </p>
<p>The Australian government has committed <a href="https://fightdementia.org.au/about-us/media/key-facts-and-statistics">A$4 million a year</a> for the next five years to overcome the same problem.</p>
<h2>Vaccine development all over the world</h2>
<p>There is <a href="https://fightdementia.org.au/about-dementia/what-is-dementia">still no cure</a> for Alzheimer’s disease. The main treatment strategy for the past 30 years has been to try to reduce symptoms of memory loss and disorientation by <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393531">replacing some of the brain chemicals</a>, called neurotransmitters, that are lost as the disease progresses.</p>
<p>Like the <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/srep28912">research reported this week</a>, we search for pharmacological breakthroughs by developing drugs to interfere with the accumulation of either the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204160/">amyloid</a> or <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471491415000581">tau proteins</a>, or both.</p>
<p>One way to achieve this is to use an active vaccine to stimulate the immune system to attack amyloid or tau. Alternatively, artificial antibodies against amyloid or tau can be given regularly via infusions. This is known as a passive vaccine. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130493/original/image-20160714-12372-poxl82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The current vaccine candidates have only been tested in mice and human tissue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At least 14 <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471491415000581">vaccine development programs</a> targeting tau are under way. For amyloid, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238820/">at least 18 vaccine programs</a> have begun or have been completed and failed. </p>
<p>Other, non-vaccine treatments against amyloid and tau are in development. For example, drugs may aim to remove the amyloid or tau or <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3505.html">to stop their formation</a> to begin with. </p>
<p>There is other good news that suggests we are getting closer to treating Alzheimer’s disease. A recent re-analysis of data from some large, but failed, clinical trials of an amyloid vaccine called <a href="http://www.alzforum.org/therapeutics/solanezumab">solanezumab</a> showed beneficial effects in a subgroup of patients. Another amyloid vaccine, <a href="http://www.alzforum.org/therapeutics/aducanumab">aducanumab</a>, was recently shown both to remove amyloid and to improve thinking in people with mild Alzheimer’s disease. </p>
<p>Both of these vaccines are being investigated in Australia. People who would like to find more information on them can contact their doctor or <a href="http://brainpet.org">our research laboratories</a>.</p>
<p>Obviously, the more shots on goal the better. The success rate in human drug development is painfully low. Pharmaceutical industry estimates suggest the development of a new drug is estimated to require at least 10 to 15 years. </p>
<p>Despite my mother-in-law’s suggestion, I still turned up for work today. While I hope these new vaccines are effective, there is a high probability they will fail to hit their target in living humans, or they will hit the target but in doing so <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd3505">make people sick</a> for other reasons. Or maybe the target is wrong altogether. So it isn’t the time to focus elsewhere just yet. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Paul will be online for an Author Q&A between 3 and 4pm on Friday, July 15, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Maruff receives funding from the CSIRO Flagship Collaboration Fund and the Science and Industry Endowment Fund (SIEF) in partnership with Edith Cowan University (ECU), Mental Health Research institute (MHRI), Alzheimer's Australia (AA), National Ageing Research Institute (NARI), Austin Health, Macquarie University, CogState Ltd., Hollywood Private Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Dementia Collaborative Research Centres program (DCRC) and Operational Infrastructure Support from the Government of Victoria. Paul Maruff is also an employee of Cogstate Ltd (ASX:CGS).
</span></em></p>News reports this week hailing a breakthrough in Alzheimer’s research, saying a vaccine for the disease is a few years away, have raised hopes for many. But let’s take a step back from the headlines.Paul Maruff, Professor, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental HealthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548812016-02-17T03:30:49Z2016-02-17T03:30:49ZDo Wi-Fi and mobile phones really cause cancer? Experts respond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111722/original/image-20160217-19241-rnmi4p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is no firm evidence that mobile phone radiation causes us harm.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>On 16th February, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/catalyst/">Catalyst</a> aired an episode on the ABC titled “<a href="http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/catalyst/SC1502H003S00">Wi-Fried</a>”, hosted by Dr Maryanne Demasi, claiming that radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi may constitute a brain cancer risk.</em></p>
<p><em>We invited experts who have conducted research into this area to respond to the claims made in the programme.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Rodney Croft, University of Wollongong</h2>
<p>Instead of science journalism, Catalyst aired a misleading program, which followed the views of a few individuals in arguing that radiofrequency emissions from wireless devices were harmful. </p>
<p>Although the program failed to disclose this, such views are not supported by science and should be taken merely as the personal views of some fringe scientists. </p>
<p>In fact, the scientific consensus is strong, and is that there is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm. </p>
<p>For more details about the international scientific consensus on this issue you may find the website of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (<a href="http://www.icnirp.org/">ICNIRP</a>) of interest, or closer to home, that of the <a href="http://acebr.uow.edu.au/index.html">Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research</a>.</p>
<p><em>Professor Rodney Croft is Director of the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia’s Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy, he is a current ICNIRP Commissioner, and Professor of Health Psychology at University of Wollongong.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Darren Saunders, University of NSW</h2>
<p>It’s really disappointing to see the bastion of TV science in Australia approach a story in this way. </p>
<p>Scaremongering and pseudoscience have plenty of other outlets on TV, and there are so many amazing science stories to be told locally and internationally. There was very selective reporting of existing data and sensationalist headlines. </p>
<p>Catalyst has missed an opportunity to use this topic as a way to demonstrate scientific or critical thinking.</p>
<p>With so many scientists questioning the content and angle of stories like this, then it’s probably time for Catalyst to reflect on its approach. </p>
<p>The really frustrating aspect is that rebuttals and factchecks won’t undo the damage. There are very real public health effects of scaremongering like this, creating anxiety and fear.</p>
<p>The two main flaws in the argument that stand out scientifically are: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The lack of any demonstrable increase in brain cancer incidence over time. We have been exposed to the same kind of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation long before mobile phones and Wi-Fi became commonplace, and </p></li>
<li><p>The absence of a plausible biological mechanism for how this kind of radiation can cause cancer. There were very poor analogies made with microwave ovens and smoking, which are purely emotive and not based on actual science. Comparing a microwave to a mobile phone is like comparing a Saturn V rocket to your lawnmower.</p></li>
</ol>
<p><em>Dr Darren Saunders is a cancer biologist at the University of NSW and visiting fellow at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Sarah Loughran, University of Wollongong</h2>
<p>The ABC’s Catalyst programme “Wi-Fried” asked the question of whether Wi-Fi and radiation from wireless devices could be affecting our health. </p>
<p>Unfortunately a very disappointing and inaccurate story was presented, with the underlying suggestion throughout the episode that exposure to the radiofrequency fields emitted by these devices is not safe. </p>
<p>Many claims were made without providing any substantiated science to support what was essentially individual and selective opinions that were used to paint an incorrect picture of the current state of knowledge. </p>
<p>Indeed there is currently no scientific evidence that exposure to low level radiofrequency, such as emitted by mobile phones and Wi-Fi, has an impact on health. </p>
<p>By not providing a balanced view of the science, Catalyst has left viewers with misleading messages related to the use of such devices, which may serve to perpetuate fear related to a health risk that currently does not exist.</p>
<p><em>Dr Sarah Loughran is a researcher at the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia’s Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy. She is currently a member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criterion Evaluation Committee on Radiofrequency Fields, the scientific expert group of ICNIRP, and is on the board of directors for the Bioelectromagnetics Society.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Simon Chapman, University of Sydney</h2>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis">Dr Devra Davis</a>, who was featured extensively in the Catalyst programme, asserted that it was too early to see any rise in brain cancer caused by mobile phones or Wi-Fi, and argued that brain cancers after the Japanese atomic bombs did not appear for 40 years. This is simply incorrect. </p>
<p>There is <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-were-not-all-being-pickled-in-deadly-radiation-from-smartphones-and-wifi-41980">no evidence of any increase</a> in the rate per 100,000 population of brain cancer in any age group in Australia from 1982 to the present, other than for the very oldest age group where the increase started well before mobile phones were introduced in Australia and so cannot be explained by mobile phones. All cancer in Australia is notifiable, and over 85% of brain cancer is histologically verified: it is not just a doctor’s opinion. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378499">This paper</a> also reports on central nervous system cancers (including brain cancers) in those exposed to atomic bomb radiation in Japan. This table from the paper shows those diagnosed before 1985 (i.e. before 40 years). You can see that there were 110/187 cases diagnosed in the first 40 years, i.e. 58.8%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111720/original/image-20160217-19260-1vdeo4o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This table shows the incidence of a variety of cancers of those exposed to atomic bomb radiation over the years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cancer/DOI 10.1002/cncr.20543</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And this quote from the methods shows that there were another 27 who died before 1958 from central nervous system cancers, i.e. within 13 years of the bombs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We excluded 73 tumors in individuals who were not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the bombings, 35 individuals who did not have available organ dose estimates, and 27 individuals who died or were diagnosed before January 1, 1958.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We have had mobiles in Australia since 1988. Some 90% of the population use them today and many of these have used them for a lot longer than 13 years, but we are seeing no rise in the incidence against the background rate.</p>
<p>Davis is arguing that we would see a sudden rise 40 years later. That is not what we see with cancer; we see gradual rises moving toward peak incidence, which can be as late as 30-40 years (as with lung cancer and smoking for example).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82134/original/image-20150519-25403-17dit8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New cases of brain cancer in Australia, 1982 to 2011 (age-adjusted)</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books/">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Simon Chapman is Emeritus Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darren Saunders receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Motor Neuron Disease Research Institute of Australia and the US Department of Defense.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Croft receives funding from National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia. He is affiliated with University of Wollongong, International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence the "Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research", and the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence "Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy".</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Loughran receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). She is affiliated with the University of Wollongong, is currently a member of the WHO Environmental Health Criterion Evaluation Committee on Radiofrequency Fields, the Scientific Expert Group of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and is on the board of directors for the Bioelectromagnetics Society. She is also a member of two NHMRC Centres of Research Excellence, "Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research" and "Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy".</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Chapman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>ABC’s Catalyst episode “Wi-Fried” claimed that mobile phones and Wi-Fi might be a cancer risk, but the leading experts are not so convinced.Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyDarren Saunders, Senior Lecturer in Medicine, UNSW SydneyRodney Croft, Professor of Health Physiology, University of WollongongSarah Loughran, Research Fellow, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/546362016-02-16T04:30:10Z2016-02-16T04:30:10ZWe can’t eradicate drugs, but we can stop people dying from them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111595/original/image-20160216-22547-h6wl23.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Drug checking would make music festivals safer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mixtribe/11488079996/">Mixtribe/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>There is something very special about illicit drugs. If they don’t always make the drug user behave irrationally, they certainly cause many non-users to behave that way.
– Harvard Professor of Psychiatry Lester Grinspoon</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Last night’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/02/15/4404734.htm">Four Corners</a> focused on party drugs and the policies Australia is implementing to combat their use. Not only is what we’re doing not working, we’re falling behind the rest of the world and what evidence says is best to ensure we have fewer deaths from illicit drugs.</p>
<p>Going back a few decades in global attitudes, drugs were bad, users were evil and the deaths of consumers were proof of the inherent danger of drugs and an inevitable outcome if people continued to insist on breaking the law.</p>
<p>Now, if we look at the drug policies in place in other countries, medical and recreational cannabis are being <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-iran-be-the-next-country-to-legalise-cannabis-and-opium-49183">embraced</a>, as well as safe <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-needs-drug-consumption-rooms-53215">injecting and consumption</a> rooms.</p>
<p>The European Union continues to roll out <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-drug-checking-and-why-do-we-need-it-in-australia-51578">drug-checking programs</a> (where party drugs are tested for strength at music festivals and other sites where they’re consumed). In April, the <a href="http://www.unodc.org/ungass2016/">United Nations General Assembly special session on drugs policy</a> is considering decriminalising personal drug use. </p>
<p>In the midst of this, Australia plods on with its punitive and prohibitionist ideals, despite the rest of the world moving on. Whether it’s the use of sniffer dogs at music festivals (which an <a href="https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/4457/Review-of-the-Police-Powers-Drug-Detection-Dogs-Part-1_October-2006.pdf">ombudsman’s report</a> found was ineffective in detecting drug dealers), or roadside drug testing (for which there is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/hundred-thousand-nsw-residents-to-be-targeted-for-wasteful-unfair-roadside-drug-testing-20151003-gk0gyo.html">no evidence</a> it prevents crashes), we seem happy to adopt interventions that have little evidence behind them, instead of those that do.</p>
<p>The most fundamental shift on drugs policy worldwide has been from moralising about use to focusing on keeping young people safe. More people are beginning accept that nowhere will ever be “drug free”. Now over a decade old, US drug policy expert Marsha Rosenbaum’s “<a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016//Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_SafetyFirst_2014_0.pdf">Safety First</a>” tells parents to replace “Just Say No” with “Just Say Know”.</p>
<h2>The global war on drugs</h2>
<p>While it may now be touted as a public health initiative, the birth of the global war on drugs was largely ideological. This has been well described both in <a href="http://dulwichcentre.com.au/articles-about-narrative-therapy/deconstructing-addiction/from-mr-sin-to-mr-big/">Australia</a> and the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902">rest of the world</a>.</p>
<p>The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, also known as <a href="http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/documents/nc1contents.aspx">The Shafer Report</a> of 1972, was shelved because it concluded there was “little proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis”. That was not what US President Richard Nixon wanted to hear. </p>
<p>When MDMA was banned, the professor of psychiatry at Harvard University <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8889454/Lewis,_Donald_00.pdf?sequence=1">successfully argued</a> it had utility as a medicine, until US President Ronald Reagan forced the ban through executive action. And so politics continues to trump science.</p>
<p>Since the war on drugs began, the entire market has changed. Drugs are now researched online, ordered from industrial chemists producing them to pharmaceutical purity, paid for using cryptocurrencies and delivered by the postie. The latest have never been identified and are undetectable either by sniffer dogs or routine toxicological tests. </p>
<p>That is not to say that the market is any safer – far from it. But drugs are now easier to get and many can’t be detected.</p>
<h2>Why we’re not moving on</h2>
<p>There is some suggestion that in NSW, at least, all of the political capital there is to spend on drugs has already been spent on medical cannabis, so there just isn’t the appetite to open another front in the growing war on the War on Drugs.</p>
<p>More broadly, Australian politicians are afraid for their political careers – they fear that a perceived back-flip on drugs policy might raise questions about their judgement. </p>
<p>However, with significant changes likely to emerge out of the UN General Assembly’s special session on drugs in April 2016, difficult questions are likely to be asked of those who have historically pursued, against all the evidence to the contrary, the global war on drugs.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most likely and disappointingly mundane reason that Australian politicians shy away from any debate on drugs policy is the multi-billion-dollar “sunk cost” of the global war on drugs to date. So much has been invested in our current and failing approach that they are pressured to keep the status quo, no matter what evidence is brought to the table.</p>
<p>Sniffer dogs at music festivals – which the NSW Ombudsman dismissed as a waste of money and even potentially dangerous – cost just shy of A$1 million a year per jurisdiction. For that sort of money, ten drug checking programs could be rolled out across Australia within weeks and to far greater effect than has ever been observed in the history of the use of sniffer dogs.</p>
<p>If our political counterparts wish to continue with a modicum of credibility on drugs policy, now would be an excellent and potentially politically rewarding time to start listening to the evidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54636/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Caldicott is a member of Harm Reduction Australia and ATODA, and has offered bipartisan academic advice in the development of medical cannabis legislation in Australia. He has no political affiliations or financial disclosures to make.</span></em></p>Not only are our drug policies not working, we’re falling behind the rest of the world and what evidence says is best to ensure we have fewer deaths from illicit drugs.David Caldicott, Emergency Medicine Consultant, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498922015-11-02T19:08:43Z2015-11-02T19:08:43ZScience fatigue keeps us clinging to bad health habits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100465/original/image-20151102-16554-rp1zos.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The apparent seesaw in health journalism causes science fatigue in the public mind.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sanggi/4158290541/in/photolist-7ksjUv-cRWhQ7-pT4rmx-d1pFk9-7kv8KX-qdifZE-6x1UBQ-qRCW9-9m45yU-anBpHL-7bpXUr-t4Tqfw-9udoe2-qGmLP-9fYyBA-asU19E-9PEqkF-eQ5ewh-g5QHzZ-8SfKc-6bWbWD-7oMb6n-8Gndu5-e1bces-anBpSw-anBpQ9-anBpN3-anBpLd-anyAMk-anyAK4-anyAGR-anyADV-anyABH-anBpty-anBppS-anyAue-anyAst-aiw2Ag-aiyNAN-8e3xkN-7QXudc-o8o4Yj-6wJ9iR-noaJpV-dwPfRw-6BPRQ7-4uCZTu-D6t2G-iE4Ehg-nyV1dM">David/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The World Health Organization (WHO) threw the cat among the pigeons last week with <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">a new report</a> linking eating red and processed meat to cancer. </p>
<p>It didn’t claim our way of life is killing us, but it would seem this way from the reactions. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/world-health-organisation-advice-would-have-australians-living-in-caves-barnaby-joyce-20151026-gkj4em.html">Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce</a>, for instance, said the WHO would have humans living in caves were we to follow all its recommendations.</p>
<p>This response is all too familiar and highlights the public’s fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Two issues stand in the way of, and often override, sensible interpretations of research findings – science fatigue and confirmation bias. </p>
<h2>Science fatigue</h2>
<p>The media constantly bombards us with the latest research on a plethora of topics without much nuance on its quality or relevance.</p>
<p>Last year red wine was good, this year it’s bad. Last month <a href="http://www.webmd.com/diet/6-reasons-to-drink-water">lots of water was good</a>, this month <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2014112/Drinking-water-bad-health-Benefits-myth.html">it’s bad</a>. Today you need more protein, tomorrow you need more carbohydrates. </p>
<p>This apparent seesaw in health journalism creates science fatigue in the public mind. The underlying science for most of these reports is sound, but as a <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805753">New England Journal of Medicine editorial</a> suggests, the reporting is often irresponsible and out to click-bait an unsuspecting public: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A problem that is worsening in this era of the 24/7 news cycle is the frequent failure to put new developments into any kind of reasonable context for readers or viewers. In this environment, reporters become little more than headline readers or conduct interviews that amount to a “hit and run” version of journalism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The constant hype <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-011-9327-6">leads to distrust</a> and erodes the integrity of scientific research. How can science be trusted if it can’t make up its mind? </p>
<p>All too often the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611611926">distinction between scientific opinion and fact</a> is not clear. Effectively engaging the public in often specialised scientific findings is <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868850552">a work in progress</a> and has been a challenge for the media, governments and science for some time.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/33079532?selectedversion=NBD22216956">2000 United Kingdom report</a> into the country’s mad cow disease outbreak in the 1990s concluded that a government department had provided inappropriate technical advice about the link between contaminated beef and human health. It said the departments’ communication had provoked an “irrational public scare”.</p>
<p>A barrage of similar instances has created a crying wolf scenario, particularly when journalists and public relations operators report certain studies as the final word. When the real wolf appears (like last week’s WHO meat evaluation) we brush it away as insignificant and continue our existing behaviours.</p>
<h2>Confirmation bias</h2>
<p>Recently a family friend pronounced that his grandmother smoked all her life and reached the ripe old age of 90, so he is not worried about his “moderate” smoking habit. His grandmother may have had the potential to reach 120 as a non-smoker, but numerous other variables could have influenced the final result for her. </p>
<p>All too often, we base important health decisions on personal anecdotal experience. The plural of anecdote is not data, yet we grasp at any straw that reinforces our own opinions so we can maintain our status quo. This is called <a href="http://www.live-anew.com/sites/default/files/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf">confirmation bias</a>. </p>
<p>In an extensive review of this phenomenon, American psychologist Raymond Nickerson contends it might in fact be the single most problematic aspect of human reasoning. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…once one has taken a position on an issue, one’s primary purpose becomes that of defending or justifying that position. This is to say that regardless of whether one’s treatment of evidence was evenhanded before the stand was taken, it can become highly biased afterward.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Numerous studies have explained confirmation bias as it applies to all kinds of fundamental situations. For instance, we tend to seek out <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005296023424">sources of information</a> likely to reinforce what we already believe in, and we <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126323/">interpret</a> the evidence in ways that support what we already believe. </p>
<p>Even the pressure to publish can create a <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010271">bias in scientists</a> which influences the objectivity and integrity of research. </p>
<p>A review of publications and related biases by the British National Institute for Health Research <a href="http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/volume-4/issue-10#hometab0">found</a> that studies with significant or favourable results were more likely to be published or cited that those with non-significant or unfavourable results. </p>
<p>When our meat eating – which is seen as such a fundamental part of our existence, our culture, our economy and maybe even our identity – is attacked, we resort to confirmation bias and often use personal anecdotes as a counter attack. </p>
<p>Certainly anecdotes in health care shouldn’t be ignored, but <a href="http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/9/963.short">they need to be understood</a> together with formal, research evidence. </p>
<h2>Scientists aren’t exempt</h2>
<p>The American Dietetic Association <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864">holds the position</a> that meat is not required for a healthy diet. Yet we have heard many experts say otherwise. In some cases, this could be because it is part of the social fabric of our society, and scientists aren’t exempt from bias.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115001006">recent study noted</a> that when scientists were put in situations where they were expected to be an expert or see themselves as experts, they tended to over-estimate the accuracy of their own beliefs.</p>
<p>Even if these beliefs stem from a knowledge in their field, the tendency to cling to prior opinions increases the likelihood of bias. </p>
<p>Thankfully, once we are able to overcome our fatigue and biases, and reasonably consider the latest evidence, we can steer ourselves in a direction where the risk of cancer is lower without any knee-jerk reactions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel du Plooy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The media constantly bombards us with the latest research on a plethora of topics without much nuance on its quality or relevance. So how can we trust science if it can’t seem to make up its own mind?Daniel du Plooy, PhD Candidate in Social Psychology, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/431772015-06-14T20:11:42Z2015-06-14T20:11:42ZABC’s 2013 Catalyst program may contribute to up to 2,900 heart attacks and strokes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84781/original/image-20150612-11427-x654u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Half a million fewer statins were dispensed to patients in the eight months following the Catalyst broadcasts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-193018853/stock-photo-watching-tv-and-using-remote-controller.html?src=JrVLkbYZnyUXjQkh-cXN_g-1-1">Concept Photo/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Media coverage of health issues, via advertising campaigns or in the form of news and current affairs coverage, can powerfully influence community understanding of disease, health risks and notions of who is responsible for doing something about these problems.</p>
<p>Often the impact of this coverage happens in “slow burn” fashion. Public understanding and access to emerging new information – and the debates accompanying it – gradually translate into personal relevance, concern, behaviour change and support for legislative or regulatory action.</p>
<p>But there have also been many casebook examples of how media coverage of health issues can have dramatic, rapid and sometimes sustained effects on health-related behaviours, both positive and negative.</p>
<p>News of Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer diagnosis in 2005, for example, was followed by an unprecedented <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/183/5/impact-news-celebrity-illness-breast-cancer-screening-kylie-minogues-breast">101% increase</a> in the number of women aged 40 to 69 booking in for their first mammogram.</p>
<p>There was also a concerning <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18515324">20% increase</a> in younger women, at very low risk for breast cancer, who underwent mammographic screening.</p>
<p>Similarly, widespread news coverage in 2002 about serious negative risks of using hormone replacement therapy (HRT), was associated with an <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14757616">18% fall in HRT</a> use in California.</p>
<p>But sometimes even very limited, small-scale news coverage can also trigger widespread effects.</p>
<p>In 2005, the ABC-TV Catalyst program ran a single item – <a href="http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/543.long">seen by</a> a quarter of Australian households – on the importance of iodine in the diet to prevent iodine deficiency disease.</p>
<p>This was followed by an immediate <a href="http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/543.long">5.2% jump</a> in national sales of iodised salt. Table salt has never been advertised, discounted or commercially promoted in Australia, so the increase was hard to explain by anything other than the Catalyst program.</p>
<p>Today, researchers from the University of Sydney and the Australian National University report on the impact of another Catalyst program. In October 2013, Catalyst broadcast a segment highly critical of statins, a class of drug used for lowering cholesterol.</p>
<p>The program questioned the link between cholesterol and heart disease, and suggested the benefit of statins in preventing cardiovascular disease was exaggerated.</p>
<p>There was extensive criticism of the program, including from the ABC’s own <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-report-could-cause-death-says-abc-health-specialist-20131104-2wx3n.html">Norman Swan</a> and the ABC later removed the episodes from the Catalyst website after an <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Catalyst-Heart-of-the-Matter-ACA-Investigation-Report.pdf">internal review</a> found that the episodes had breached its impartiality standards.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/11/crux-matter-did-abcs-catalyst-program-change-statin-use-australia">new report</a> in the Medical Journal of Australia used Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data of 191,000 people and found an immediate fall of some half a million fewer statins dispensed to patients in the eight months following the Catalyst broadcasts.</p>
<p>The authors wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This translated to an estimated 60,897 fewer people taking statins over the eight months examined. If patients continue to avoid statins over the next five years, this could result in between 1,522 and 2,900 preventable, and potentially fatal, heart attacks and strokes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the study authors, Associate Professor Sallie Pearson, Scientific Director of the Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing at the University of Sydney, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What is particularly concerning is that this drop in use was seen in people who were at high risk of cardiovascular disease – for example, those who were also taking medications for diabetes. Heart attacks and strokes are the main killers of people with diabetes.</p>
<p>Statins are recommended for people at high risk of cardiovascular disease because they have been shown to be effective. Like all medications, they have risks and benefits and should only be used as recommended.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The study authors wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even though the observed effect was relatively small, the prevalence of statin use in Australia and their established efficacy means that a large number of people are affected, and may suffer unnecessary consequences.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43177/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In October 2013, Catalyst broadcast a segment highly critical of statins, a class of drug used for lowering cholesterol.Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/290772014-07-16T20:12:47Z2014-07-16T20:12:47ZThe problem of false balance when reporting on science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53962/original/jbtnphxf-1405488541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who needs balance?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aoberg/8129722589">Adrian Berg</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How do you know the people billed as science experts that you see, hear and read about in the media are really all that credible? Or have they been included just to create a perception of balance in the coverage of an issue?</p>
<p>It’s a problem for any media and something the BBC’s Trust is trying to address in its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2014/science_impartiality.html">latest report</a> on science impartiality in programming.</p>
<p>As part of ongoing training, staff, particularly in non-news programs, were told that impartiality is not just about including a wide range of views on an issue, as this can lead to a “false balance”. This is the process of providing a platform for people whose views do not accord with established or dominant positions simply for the sake of seeming “balanced”.</p>
<p>The BBC has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage">criticised before</a> for “false balance” and there are reports now that certain climate change sceptics <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2685405/Ive-banned-BBC-Ex-Chancellor-Lord-Lawson-passionate-climate-change-sceptic-accuses-BBC-bosses-silencing-debate-global-warming.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490">are banned</a> from BBC News, although this is <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/lord-lawson-says-stalinist-bbc-has-banned-him-returning-talk-about-climate-change">denied by the BBC</a>.</p>
<p>It’s understandable that such false balance could grow from a desire to seem impartial, and particularly so since public broadcasters such as the BBC and the ABC in Australia are sensitive to claims of imbalance or bias.</p>
<p>Couple this with the need to negotiate the difficult ground of expert opinion, authentic balance and audience expectation, not to mention the always delicate tension between the imperatives of news and entertainment, and it hardly seems surprising that mistakes are made. An <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Catalyst-Heart-of-the-Matter-ACA-Investigation-Report.pdf">investigation</a> this year found the ABC breached its own impartiality standards in its Catalyst program last year on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/abcs-catalyst-program-breached-impartiality-standards/5447242">statins and heart disease</a>.</p>
<h2>Finding the right balance</h2>
<p>How then can journalists decide the best way to present a scientific issue to ensure accurate representation of the views of the community of experts? Indeed, how can any of us determine if what we are seeing in the media is balanced or a misrepresentation of expert opinion?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53966/original/fnrg333p-1405489003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hard to find the right balance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/paxson_woelber/5434541912">Flickr/Paxson Woelber </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As I have written <a href="https://theconversation.com/brandis-confuses-right-to-be-heard-with-right-to-be-taken-seriously-25791">elsewhere</a>, it is important to not confuse the right to be heard with an imagined right to be taken seriously. If an idea fails to survive in the community of experts, its public profile should diminish in proportion to its failure to generate consensus within that community.</p>
<p>A common reply to this is that science isn’t about consensus, it’s about the truth. This is so, but to use a consensus as evidence of error is fallacious reasoning.</p>
<p>While it’s true that some presently accepted notions have <a href="http://www.webmd.com/heartburn-gerd/news/20051003/ulcers-give-scientists-nobel-prize-in-medicine">in the past been peripheral</a>, the idea that simply being against the majority view equates to holding your intellectual ground in the best tradition of the enlightenment is ludicrous. </p>
<p>If all views are equal, then all views are worthless.</p>
<p>Were I to propose an idea free of testing or argument, I could not reasonably expect my idea to be as credible as those subject to rigorous experimentation and collaborative review. If such equality did exist then progress would be impossible, since progress is marked by the testing and rejection of ideas.</p>
<h2>Defining an expert</h2>
<p>In the case of science, this testing is the process of experimentation, data analysis and peer review. So if someone – scientist or otherwise – has not worked and published in an area, then they are not an expert in that area. </p>
<p>The first imperative for a journalist covering any story is to determine exactly in what field the issue best sits and then to seek advice from people who work and publish in that field.</p>
<p>Knowing how the issue fits into the broader picture of scientific investigation is very useful in determining this. It is one of the reasons that good science journalism follows from having journalists with some training in science. </p>
<p>Such a selection process, performed transparently, is an excellent defence against charges of bias.</p>
<h2>Avoiding false balance</h2>
<p>False balance can also be created by assuming that a person from outside the field (a non-expert) will somehow have a perspective that will shed light on an issue, that the real expert is too “caught up in the details” to be objective.</p>
<p>But suggesting that an expert is naive usually indicates an attempt at discrediting rather than <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">truth seeking</a>. Credibility is more about process than authority, and to be a recognised expert is to work within the process of science. </p>
<p>Also, if a piece of science is being criticised, we should ask if the criticism itself has been published. It’s not enough that someone with apparent authority casts doubt as this is simply an appeal to authority – an appeal that critics of mainstream science themselves use as a warrant to reject consensus.</p>
<p>A second journalistic imperative would be to recognise that not all issues are binary.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53849/original/wt4bvx3w-1405395072.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coins may have two sides but not so every science issue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeyc/94729648">Flickr/monkeyc net</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The metaphor that a coin has two sides is a powerful one, and the temptation to look at both sides of an issue is naturally strong. But the metaphor also assumes an equal weighting, and that both sides present the same space for discussion. </p>
<h2>Proof and evidence</h2>
<p>When an issue is genuinely controversial, the burden of proof is shared between opposing views. When a view is not mainstream, say that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public, the burden of proof sits with those promoting that view.</p>
<p>In such cases, as Christopher Hitchens <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22199-what-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-also-be-dismissed">succinctly put it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Attempting to dishonestly shift the burden of proof is a common device in the push to have young earth creationism <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-schools-find-way-through-creationism-meets-science-minefield-in-the-classroom-22807">taught in science classrooms</a>.</p>
<p>The idea of “teaching both sides” or that students should be allowed to make up their own minds seems again like a recourse to the most basic ideas of a liberal education, but is in reality an attempt to bypass expert consensus, to offload the burden of proof rather than own it.</p>
<p>The fact is, that for issues such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/creationism">creationism</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a> and that <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/climate-change">climate change</a> is occurring and is a function of human activity, it’s not about journalists suppressing views, it’s about quality control of information. </p>
<h2>Stay with the issue</h2>
<p>A classic means of muddying the waters is to employ straw man arguments, in which the point at issue is changed to one more easily defended or better suited to a particular interest. Politicians are adept at doing this, dodging hard questions with statements like “the real issue is” or “what’s important to people is”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cjuGCJJUGsg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An expert versus who?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/climate-change-scepticism">Deniers of climate science</a> often change the issue from global warming to whether or not consensus is grounds for acceptance (it alone is not, of course), or focus on whether a particular person is credible rather than discuss the literature at large.</p>
<p>The anti-vaccine lobby talks about “choice” rather than efficacy of health care.
Young earth creationists talk about the right to express all views rather than engage with the science. Politicians talk about anything except the question they were asked.</p>
<p>The third imperative, therefore, is to be very clear as to what the article or interview is about and stick to that topic. Moving off topic negates the presence of the experts (the desired effect) and gives unsubstantiated claims prominence.</p>
<h2>The impartiality checklist</h2>
<p>The best method of dealing with cranks, conspiracy theorists, ideologues and those with a vested interest in a particular outcome is the best method for science reporting in general:</p>
<ul>
<li>insist on expertise</li>
<li>recognise where the burden of proof sits</li>
<li>stay focused on the point at issue.</li>
</ul>
<p>If the media sticks to these three simple rules when covering science issues, impartiality and balance can be justifiably asserted.</p>
<p><br>
<br></p>
<p><strong><em>Correction: This article was amended on July 17, 2014 to include a report of the BBC’s denial that a climate change sceptic was banned from the public broadcaster.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How do you know the people billed as science experts that you see, hear and read about in the media are really all that credible? Or have they been included just to create a perception of balance in the…Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.