Please look out for some research papers about medical news stories, which will be published in PLoS ONE, an open-access journal, in the coming months (one paper will be published on Wed 1st July 2009, which may be timely for Ben’s pub talk). As someone who is trying to bridge the gap between science and journalism, what I find worrying is the dearth of published empirical data available by which “experts” apparently make their recommendations and air their views. I see in science journalism a parallel with what medicine was like before it adopted evidence-based medicine.

Just look at the 25th June issue of Nature (thanks DrG), as an example. I’ve briefly scanned the series of articles about “Science and the Media” and they all seem to be editorials, opinions (i.e. commentaries) and features (i.e. narrative reviews or essays). No empirical data, but plenty of anecdotes. If you search MedLine (or other academic databases), you will find there are already some published research papers about “medical news” that are based on empirical data. But you will also find many more published articles along the same lines as Nature’s “Science and the Media” series (i.e. commentaries and narrative reviews) that do not have any solid evidence to back up their views. It should be obvious that more good data needs to be collected and more good research needs to be published in the interdisciplinary field of “Science and the Media”.

Artsgrad, there’s no sign-up list for this one. It’ll be a complete free-for-all, just like the old days. I hope no one dies.

As a researcher, I’ve worked with journalists on a number of occasions. My own experience has taught me that a new model is required if we (scientists) are to contribute to the accurate reporting of our work. That is, I find the best way to ensure a new result is reported accurately is to work up a traditional press release in collaboration with your institution in anticipation of a paper being published, then taking this to a SCIENCE journalist (the traditional press release process enhances the likelihood of errors as they are usually of limited scope, and will just be copy and pasted anyway). The engagement with a reporter should be done with enough time before the embargo of the paper is lifted (with the journalist’s understanding they can’t print until then, of course) which gives the time needed to ensure the results are accurately described, and time for the reporter to get the other side of the story or some independent support, if that’s appropriate.

This is obviously a much more engaged model, but if you’re ‘creating knowledge’ it’s your responsibility to ensure that it finds it’s way into the media intact. No point moaning the media have misrepresented your work if you haven’t engaged with them. Science can be awesome, and we should all ensure that everyone gets to see that.

Please keep doing gigs once I get around to becoming a man of means.

So I can buy you a pint, I mean.