|
John Clements is the science secretary, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society
|
Does the public understand how advances in scientific knowledge are
made? How does the public evaluate the constant stream of scientific
discoveries
(or “discoveries”) reported in the press and media? Is the
public aware of the peer review process? And why should this be important?
The organisation Sense About Science set out to answer these questions
and in 2004 it published “Peer review and the acceptance of new
scientific ideas”, which should be essential reading for all working
in research — and in the media.
Since the time of Francis Bacon, the processes of experimentation, discovery,
hypothesis building, testing, re-evaluating and peer review have been
fundamental to advances in scientific knowledge. SAS’s report reminds
us of what we understand by the peer review process and its central role
in the advancement of scientific knowledge. In addition, it addresses
the question of the public’s perception of scientific discoveries,
as gleaned from the media. It points out that the public is generally
unaware of the peer review process and so has no basis on which to judge
the validity of the various claims made in the press for scientific advances
or discoveries.
Some of the recent issues include the suggested link between MMR vaccine
and the development of autism in children, the use mobile telephones
and the potential for brain damage, the possible health risks from foods
containing genetically modified crops, and the implications of producing
human clones. These are straightforward questions for the public but
often the answers are complex or incomplete.
Often there are misunderstandings by the public about the current state
of knowledge and these misperceptions can have important implications
when they relate to public health and environmental matters. For example,
it is reported that over half the public believes the medical profession
to be divided over the health risks of MMR whereas it is more or less
united that there is no risk.
Undoubtedly, there is now a greater “hunger” by the public
for scientific knowledge, and this is to be welcomed. There is also greater
pressure than ever on scientists to publicise their discoveries. Just
occasionally, scientists may be tempted to consider their findings so
important as to bypass the peer review process. Going straight to the
public may be seen to underline the importance of the claim. It was a
pharmacist working at the University of Sunderland who, in 2002, claimed
to have identified some children whose autism may have resulted from
the MMR vaccine. The results were never published in a scientific journal.
Nevertheless, they were cited 41 times in newspaper articles and thereby
gained credence in the public eye. Unfortunately, it may take many years
to change the public’s perception, once established.
Prominence given to early, unsubstantiated findings causes confusion
in the public mind. Furthermore, it reduces the effectiveness of public
health information when it is needed. There is some evidence that the
public wishes to see more care taken in evaluating information before
there is widespread reporting. In a survey of the public’s reaction
to media coverage of the alleged link between MMR vaccine and autism,
48 per cent thought that the media should have waited for more information
before reporting on the possible link.
Peer review, although not perfect, offers a process with checks and balances
and may detect plagiarism and falsification. Cases of fabrication or
fraud are, fortunately, rare. Claims for the “discovery” of
two new chemical elements from a laboratory in California were subsequently
admitted to be false. A scientist at Bell Laboratories was exposed as
constructing fraudulent data that were included in 25 papers he had published
in the area of nanotechnology.
The media frenzy can be intense. In December 2002 a US company announced
the birth of the first cloned human. The international media devoted
front pages to the story for two or three weeks, based simply on the
company statement and in the absence of corroboration. There was no baby.
It is important that discoveries that affect our health are made known
so that we can all benefit. But this is the dilemma. How soon does a
research finding become fact? Clearly there is a need for early independent
corroboration and analysis. The greater the significance of the research
finding, the more important it is that the research is on a sound footing,
as peer-reviewed work. Proper review and independent corroboration take
time and resources. There is also a certain impatience to “know
the answer”. But the costs of acting on flawed findings are potentially
high and may damage public confidence in science and scientists.
There are good examples where substantial findings, properly replicated,
can change ideas and clinical practice. Research in 1983 showed Helicobacter
pylori could be linked to gastritis and peptic ulcers, contrary to prevailing
opinion. Once substantiated, this resulted in new treatments of peptic
ulcer and gastritis and lower rates of stomach cancer.
What can be done? We, as scientists, understand the importance of peer
review and the need for other workers to corroborate initial findings.
Peer review also involves placing qualifications and limitations on the
conclusions. There is a tension between the exact findings, as published
in a peer-review journal, and their interpretation in the media. Important
qualifying language and caveats are often omitted in the popular press.
A part of our remit should be to make the peer review process known more
widely by journalists, press officers and the public at large. We need
to raise the public profile of peer review and seek to explain that the
standards of evidence on which research claims are made can be highly
variable. Also, peer review should be recognised as a filtering device,
not a barrier, in the search for scientific truth.
Scientists should ensure that they have input into the content of press
releases to ensure their accuracy, and monitor news stories on their
research. The public needs a scientific interpretation of the data to
make them meaningful. For example, the publication by the Department
of Health of specific energy absorption rates for mobile telephones,
unaccompanied by any interpretation, served no apparent purpose.
There is a need to encourage more dialogue between scientist and journalists.
Last year the Royal Pharmaceutical Society was involved with Sense About
Science in an event “The voice of young scientists in the media”.
This brought together young scientists and science correspondents working
in the media and promoted a mutual understanding of their work. A tangible
outcome was the increased willingness expressed by the scientists to
engage with journalists and publicise their findings. Such events deserve
support. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal