I’m shocked that some university PRs don’t have press releases signed off by the lead academic on the study. This is basic practice in PR.

I do copywriting on scientific and technical topics for companies, and the scientist ALWAYS has full editorial control over what I’ve written.

I’m normally glad they do because, despite having a science PhD, I’m not arrogant enough to believe I can write about an unknown field without errors.

Instead, those who design and release written information to the press are often sponsors of the print media who will issue the press release.

Such sponsors often instruct such media outlets with mandated authoritarian nuances such as the press release that they created will not be altered in any way by the print media that agrees to release the press created by the sponsor of the media outlet.

Of course, the sponsor and creator of such a press release create such written words in order to promote the sponsor’s company, as well as its products. By doing so, they are allowed the freedom to embellish if not fabricate what may be annotated on the release they issue to the press that has now been bought by them, the corporate sponsor.

These well- constructed statements are meticulously composed and customized before they are issued to targeted editors and contacts at mass media publication locations.

The sponsor also has been known to direct the location and time of the release of their press creation that, upon direction from the sponsor, is completely un-reviewed by such a media source.

As this is done, the mass media outlets are again instructed on how to present their completed statements by who are often corporate sponsors. Furthermore, the media is given instructions once more that what has been written by their sponsor shall remain as it exists.

As a result of this collusion, press releases are presently a form of public relations often utilized for those companies who create what is supposed to be an attempt to express their products as being newsworthy to the readers.

Press releases, historically, have been created and released to inform the readers by adding insight and related information for them regarding a particular topic that was typically complete and balanced. At least, that was the intent.

Today, they seem to be more or less an annotative commercial with press compositions generated by corporations in particular, so it seems.

Unfortunately, and presently, press releases are often embellished, biased, and incomplete with deliberate intent in order to benefit the creator of these documents, who again develop them solely to increase awareness and usage of their products that they promote with their business, which they want to be viewed as favorable and with a positive image to the public.

One could suggest that the mass media who receives these press statements from certain corporations are transformed into acute front groups who perhaps coercively offer third party legitimacy for the content of the press release as they release this information to their readers.

The often notable if not intentional, flaws at times are numerous within such press releases that reflect reckless disregard with informing readers in such a way, who are the American public. Citizens typically believe that what they are reading from a respected media source is both honest and complete.

An example is an anonymous press release posted on the Medical News Today website (www.medicalnewstoday.com) that is dated in March of 2006. The title: “Cymbalta Safely and Effectively Treats core anxiety symptoms associated with generalized anxiety disorder.”

Cymbalta, by the way, is a psychoactive drug often utilized for human affective disorders.

Clearly, this title itself includes words associated with relief or elation, which are subjective and not objective elements which would clearly be more appropriate- with a health care press release in particular.

The first paragraph of this press release repeats the results mentioned in the title of this article, but also states Cymbalta offers relief of painful symptoms associated with anxiety, as well as improved functional impairment- also claimed to be associated with anxiety in this press release.

These conclusions are speculative at best, as these inferences appear to be unexamined by others regarding the benefits claimed to exist with Cymbalta as illustrated in this press release.

Cymbalta was not approved by the FDA for anxiety or any of the symptoms associated with this condition at the time of this press release. In fact, Cymbalta was not filed with the FDA for this speculated new indication for anxiety that was desired by Eli Lilly until May of 2006.

By definition, this press release may possibly be off-label promotion as well as misbranding of Cymbalta that was performed overtly in this manner of the press release, one may speculate.

As one continues to read this press release, testimonials were intentionally created and inserted into this press release that illustrated results they hope are impactful to the reader regarding Cymbalta.

This testimonial was from the lead author, who expanded the claims made initially with utilizing various medical terms, which was followed by this person’s passionate optimism about the great potential of Cymbalta based on this remarkable study.

This study, by the way, was to be addressed in further detail at a National Anxiety meeting some weeks after this press release was announced to the public on this website.

The second testimonial was Eli Lilly’s Medical Advisor expressing his elation about what the lead author just stated, followed by how much he was encouraged by these results that will benefit so many others that have these debilitating medical conditions.

Of course, profit forecasts and desired market growth and expansion regarding Cymbalta remarkably were not stated in this press release.

What is not included in this particular press release were any clear statements regarding the disadvantages and adverse if not toxic events associated those who take Cymbalta.

Reactions from Cymbalta users include discontinuation syndrome at times, when the user stops taking this medication, which I understand can be quite devastating for the one experiencing this syndrome.

Furthermore acts of suicide and suicidal ideation have been frequently associated with those who take Cymbalta as well. There has been a lack of efficacy suggestions by others who have taken Cymbalta.

Basically, anything that may be considered negative aspects about this drug were not annotated in this particular press release as it should have been for fair balance that is or should be a primary standard in the pharmaceutical industry and the professions involving journalism.

Acquired from Wikipedia:
According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are nine elements of journalism [1]. In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3. Its essence is discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
In the April 2007 edition of the book [2], they have added one additional element, the rights and responsibilities of citizens to make it a total of ten elements of journalism.

The staff involved with the release and publication of such press releases as this one was annotated and described should perhaps be more informed on what not to accept and what to present regarding these issues addressed. Then they may meet the requirements and obligations of what they provide the people.

As with any reporting by the media, objectivity and thorough completeness of the topic discussed in a press release is a necessary requirement with any publishing that is potentially exposed to so many other readers- with issues related to the restoration of their health in particular:

“The public has a lot at stake, and the media has a responsibility always to be aware of the source of information and the conflicts those sources might have when they report the results of clinical research. People who have financial stake in the results of clinical research can well be biased in the way research is conducted, in the way they report it, and what they say about it when interviewed by the media.”
– Arnold Relman, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

Dan Abshear

* NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 36 people
* STYLE OF TRIAL: observational
* LENGTH OF TRIAL: three weeks

and then point out that (because these studies are increasingly common) the university will be ridiculed if all of these details are not included somewhere in the press release and it gets evaluated. Naturally, you’re just trying to help them by providing all of the information that they’ll obviously need in a handy package.

Fear of embarrassment is a powerful motivator.

If you can get your entire department to use a similar approach, then you might get them used to the fact that this checklist should exist, thus changing your departments habits.

(Hmm… Behavioral psych study, anyone? The “intervention” could be a one-hour meeting with the PR folks about a change to their press release approval process, and a note to the geeks about not getting a press release sent out if they don’t provide all the details. Compare “experimental” group against a random sample of press releases from a similar university.)

What is the intention of a press release? Research is supposed, is it not, to be incremental, published in a journal to be considered by other researchers in the context of the body of knowledge in the field as a whole. So why is academic research being announced in this piecemeal way to the public? That’s not science, is it? It’s PR. Why are academics indulging themselves, then, in propaganda?

Let us be honest here. Science has an ideal as a quest for truth, performed by selfless toilers. But the reason science has become science by press release is that many scientists having axes to grind, and are releasing their results in this manner via the press precisely because both the press and the public do not understand the subtleties of interpretation of studies and the fine points of statistics. If a researcher is for instance an anti-fat person crusader, he can release to the press the statement that (e.g.) “30% of stillbirths are to overweight women”, creating the impression that being fat is a risk to the child, having not included in the press release the fact that 30% of women are defined medically as overweight.

It is ludicrous for such researchers to argue that it’s the fault of university PR offices, or the journalists, or the public, for mangling or not understanding the research. If researchers really cared about clarity, they would not author the press releases in the first place, or would issue retractions. But there are enormous vested interests in the scientific community, as in all communities, and there is more to be gained by bandwagonning scares, and worst of all is the simple fact that many of these researchers, particularly in hotbutton issues like tobacco control, obesity, alcohol and so on are just, let’s be frank, fanatical nutballs relentlessly pushing various prohibitonist agendas.

If we want an end to bad press releases, we must have an end to press releases, period. There is no scientific reason for the readers of the News Of The World to be breathlessly told that people who eat 1mg less salt per day have a 3% lower risk of a heart attack. Is there?

With that in mind, expecting different performance from one than the other seems irrational.

Possibly it would help if someone created a handbook for science reporters or PR people, to help them navigate some of the pitfalls that weren’t covered in their college classes in writing.

Whether or not anyone would actually use such a handbook is an open question.

According to getinspired’s link, science may be dropped from the PRIMARY curriculum. Pupils over 11 will still study science – just like in the “olden days” of the late 20th century.

It’d be relatively quick and simple to get a rating – 5 points for a test group over 1000 people, 10 points double-blind placebo, etc – and most importantly, it’d be very easy for journalists to grasp so they can quickly judge the merits of a press release.

Link should have been
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6012613

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6012613/

Well, nothing is definite but it’s certainly not an unlikely prospect. It’s crazy, I still know people that thing heavier things fall faster! – how can you come out of high school thinking that? I dread to think what effect taking science out from the core subjects will have. Good news for quacks and charlatans I guess…

(@Ben: Sorry to nitpick but I think you forgot to put in your tag in this post :/ – unless you meant to have the whole article show on the home page – in which case, ignore this comment)

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6012613/

Well, nothing is definite but it’s certainly not an unlikely prospect. It

“Blog homeopathy horror hammers hippy herbalists”
(“Graun abandons Q&A after subject hides under bed”)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/graun_neals_yard_storm/

Ben gets a mention.

Then again, nearly 20 years ago I was getting asked by the head of department whether I could see my way to getting something published and score departmental points. We were the faculty of law, department of accounting, and I was the computer technician – we’d been donated a computer laboratory a while before. Briefly I considered writing up something on on-screen print preview technique (which I was quite proud of)… So that pressure to produce isn’t new like the Internet.

Then I realised that I the sentence I recognised was from the bit that Liberman quoted on the Log yesterday.

I hate my brain and the revisionism that it engages in.

The best thing, it seems to me, would be to enrich the journalistic ecosystem with more species in niches like the one that Goldacre’s Bad Science column occupies — agile, razor-clawed predators culling the herds of science-news herbivores that graze the green shoots of press releases on the endless media plains.

I don’t see why we would think that University PR offices would be filled with people better able to write suitable descriptions of science than journalists. Ok they are nearer to the actual scientists, but then academics are but an email away to
journalists too.

The last time I had an opportunity to write a press-release type of article, the university PR person offered to write the article, but given his previous comments on the subject I could see he hadn’t grasped the subject properly, so I wrote the article myself with the help of colleagues.

To my amazement it did end up in a newspaper with minimal editing, such that misrepresentation did not occur. I put that down to lots of time spent writing the article in the first place to a high standard to minimise the editing that the paper would want to do.

Thinking about it, though, it’s entirely plausible that it could be the other way round as well. Which would be rather more worrying.

It may also be interesting to see whether universities who ranked near the middle of the table provided comparable results.