Health and Science News/Feature Writing

By Purita S. LicasRegional DirectorPhilippine Information Agency

Why does it matter how health and science issues should be written and reported?

It matters because misleading information is positively dangerous: It can even cost lives!1. There is a natural and inevitable tension between

journalists and groups of professionals whose activities are the subject of widespread publicity.

2. No one expects journalists and politicians to always agree on the way politics should be reported, and some difference of perspective and emphasis between journalists and the science community is similarly to be expected.

3. There is, however, a significant amount of common ground. All responsible journalists and all responsible scientists can agree, without prejudice to their editorial and professional freedoms, that the interests of the general public should always be paramount.

4. Information which is misleading, as well as information which is factually inaccurate, can cause real distress to vulnerable groups. At worst, it can even be argued that misleading information resulting in unjustified behavioral changes (e.g. reluctance to undergo vaccination because of a scare) can cost lives.

Guidelines in health and science story writing1. State the source of the data for the story, like from

an interview, conference, journals, survey from a charity or trade body, etc.

2. Specify the size and nature of the study like who/what were the subjects, how long did the study last, what was tested or was it an observation? If space, mention the major limitations.

3. When reporting a link between two things, indicate whether or not there is evidence that one causes the other.

4. Give a sense of the stage of the research like cells in a laboratory or trials in humans, and a realistic time-frame for any new treatment or technology

5. On health risks, include the absolute risk whenever it is available in the press release or the research paper, like if cupcakes double cancer risks, state the outright risk of that cancer, with or without cupcakes.

Guidelines in health and science story writing6. Especially on a story with public health implications,

try to frame a new finding in the context of other evidence, like does it reinforce or conflict with previous studies? If it attracts serious scientific concerns, they should not be ignored.

7. If space, quote both the researchers themselves and external sources with appropriate expertise. Be wary of scientists and press releases over-claiming for studies.

8. Distinguish between findings and interpretation or extrapolation; don’t suggest health advice if none has been offered.

9. Remember patients don’t call something a ‘cure’ that is not a cure.

10.Headlines should not mislead the reader about a story’s contents and quotation marks should not be used to dress up overstatement.

7 deadly sins of Health and Science Reporting

1. ‘Scientists have proven that’ or ‘it has been scientifically proven that’

Why? In science, we never prove something. We can only improve our confidence in a hypothesis or find flaws with it.

Details: Sometimes, it is impossible to disprove something confidently, but that mainly works in domains like physics. Medicine is notoriously messy because it deals with changeable, complex and individual bodies. There are potential exceptions to nearly anything, and the link between two things is generally statistical, rather than clear-cut ‘if X, then Y’ relationships.

Health and nutrition is even worse because it deals with how we interact with our equally messy environment. We know about most of the big contributory causes of bad breath such as starvation, disease, parasites and poisoning so arguably many new findings are smaller refinements that are hard to pick out from the ‘noise’ of individual variation and habits. We know plenty of things, just beware of absolute certainty.

Takeaway: Discount the findings of any health or nutrition article with “scientists prove that. . .” by 80 %.

2. X causes cancer, so it must be badWhy? There are no good or bad substances. Even water can kill you if you drink too much of it.Details: There are a surprising number of things associated with slightly increased or decreased risks of getting cancer. We tend to think of things as pure/good/healthy or impure/evil/harmful, but in practice, there’s no distinction. Many medications are poisonous, but they are helpful because they are more poisonous to infections or cancer cells than to the rest of the body. Sometimes, it’s the dose that makes the poison. So, sleeping a lot or a little is associated with higher mortality (even when you control for depression and sickness, which, of course, also affect how much you want or can sleep). There can also be trade-offs between risks and benefits. Moderate alcohol intake can be good for heart health (middle aged men, at least), but it increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and accidents. Whether something is good for you may depend on who you are, what you do and other risk factors.Takeaway: As Oscar Wilde said “everything in moderation, including moderation”; it is probably better to eat a diverse diet than to try to only eat ‘good’ things.

3. Guyabano, alugbati, etc. can cure cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

Why? There are no ‘natural or magic cures for cancer, diabetes or any disease/s of aging.

Details: If these natural products actually worked, people consuming them would rarely, if ever, get the diseases of old age and die. The longest mean health and life spans of any sizeable populations are in developed countries, and they are mainly attributable to antibiotics, vaccinations, reduction in smoking, improved sanitation, and public health care infrastructure. We don’t have artificial ‘silver bullets’ either.

The reason is that most of these conditions are very complex and don’t have neat causes that can be fixed easily. Science is certainly working hard on the problem, but progress is generally piecemeal.

Takeaway: We already have many drugs that were extracted from natural things or are based on them. When the Cockrane collaboration, an international network of thousands of researchers and organizations, compiles the results of large human trials involving natural products, then, it is time to take notice.

4. X gene causes you to smile/be grumpy/get diabetes

Why? No single gene causes a behavior trait or, except in rare cases, a complex disease. Details: When a single gene mutation causes something, we call it a monogenic disease.  Monogenic diseases include cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and sickle-cell anemia. Complex behavioral traits and diseases of ageing are polygenic and multi-factorial disorders, which depend on both genes and environment. No one gene causes you to be happy, sad or diabetic. A sad case of personality.

The same applies for brain areas and neurotransmitters: serotonin is involved in mood regulation, but it is also involved in regulating gut movement (90% of it is in the intestines). Adding more serotonin is unlikely to help either function. If you get happy by eating chocolate, it could be because you enjoy the taste and may not be due to chemical reactions within the brain. Takeaway: If you truly want to find reasons for your traits or propensity towards a complex disease, why not compile a detailed family history?

5. Red wine, turmeric or yoga can help you live longer and be healthier.

Why? Unfortunately, there is no fountain of youth or elixir of life.Details: Articles that state eating something or doing something can help you live longer generally make their case using a long-lived or comparatively healthy population such as Japan. In these populations, the effects of eating or doing something can be explained by their homogenous genetics and environment. Even so, these people still live the normal maximum human lifespan which is about 100 years. So innocent. Public domain photos. Science has figured out a lot about how ageing works, and some researchers work on slowing it down. However, there is still a vast step from what works on a small lab animal to a useful pill for humans. Stay tuned. Takeaway: If you want to live longer, don’t smoke, take recommended vaccinations, exercise and just try to enjoy life.

6. A new study from the University of Timbuktu. . .Why? Science, unlike religion, doesn’t work based on authority. Don’t assume that an experiment is well constructed and executed because it’s from an elite university. Details: Less elite universities can of course do bad research but “brand names” apply in academia as they do elsewhere. Some universities have or can afford bigger press teams than others. Journalists are trained to provide accurate, nuanced and unbiased analyses to the public. This is regularly practiced in the political domain with reports on political scandals and other investigative journalism. We need the same for science. Takeaway: Would you still read this article if the research was performed at the University of Never-heard-of-them in Where-in-the-world-is-this city?

7. Just-so stories

Why? In science, laboratory results seldom make simple stories. This is especially true when dealing with biology.  Details: It’s easy to believe a good story such as how diet habits like those of your ancient ancestors are healthier for you or that women thinks in a certain way because they were gatherers rather than hunters. It sounds plausible. Unfortunately, sounding plausible often has almost nothing to do with actually being true.

Takeaway: If you come across a neat little just-so story, it is likely over-simplified and stripped of its contextual underpinning, or just plain wrong.

Our aim isn’t to undermine the value of science but to become more critical reporters and readers. The list is by no means exhaustive and if you feel we have missed an important cliché`, please comment below, email or tweet us. In the meantime, remember if you want to live longer, have fun and do nothing. The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

Tips on Writing and Reporting Science

1. Science demands evidence, and some forms of evidence are worth more than others are.

2. There is no one scientific method, but all good science includes elaborate procedures to discover and avoid biases that might mislead.

3. Uncertainty is a sign of honest science and reveals a need for further research before reaching a conclusion. Cutting edge science is highly uncertain and often flat-out wrong.

4. The pace of science, despite the hype, is usually slow, not fast. Breakthroughs are never the result of one experiment.

5. Balanced coverage of science does not mean giving equal weight to both sides of an argument. It means apportioning weight according to the balance of evidence.

Tips on Writing and Reporting Science

5. Virtually all new technologies pose risks along with benefits. Thus, ‘safe’ and ‘effective’, whether applied to drugs or new devices or processes, are always relative terms. It is irrational to ask whether something is safe or not. Nothing is 100% safe. Policy decisions involving science must balance risks and benefits.

6. Journalists and scientists espouse similar goals. Both seek truth and want to make it known. Both devote considerable energy to guard against being misled. Both observe a discipline of verifying information. Both insist that society allow them freedom to pursue investigations wherever they lead. Neither requires licensure or approval of an outside authority to practice its craft.

7. News organizations usually invest too much importance in a scientific development and not nearly enough in the broader trends.