The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Scientists take on science media

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jun 24, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Scientists take on science media

Hasan Suroor

"SENSATIONALISM" AND "headline-grabbing" are more the stuff of tabloids but now an internationally respected academic journal is facing allegations of "scare-mongering" and "desperate headline-seeking" in an unprecedented public row between two formidable pillars of Britain's science Establishment — the venerable Royal Society and the heavy-weight Lancet magazine, regarded as a bible by medical professionals around the world.

As many as 30 Fellows of the Royal Society, all distinguished scientists and including two Nobel Laureates, have accused the journal of creating health scares and putting lives at risk by publishing half-baked research in areas of critical importance to the people.

They have questioned its editorial judgment which, according to them, has resulted in "flawed" research being put into the public domain and undermining trust in science. "... the publication of badly conducted and poorly refereed scare stories has had devastating consequences for individual and public health, in the U.K. and abroad, and carried a heavy economic cost," they have said in a joint letter leaked to The Times.

Serious charges

These are serious allegations and made by people who are known to watch their words carefully. Indeed, rather than launching into a fishing expedition, they have been cautious enough to build their case around three major scare stories triggered by research claims published in Lancet.

The most controversial of these cases related to the claim — since disowned by Lancet — that the triple Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, for children could cause autism. Andrew Wakefield, who led the research, advised parents not to give the jab to children causing nationwide panic with people abandoning the Government's vaccination programme in droves. It became a major political issue in Britain and the Government was accused of exposing children to risk. Angry parents called for Prime Minister Tony Blair to declare publicly whether his own child had been given MMR.

Scientists claim that the incidence of measles went up as panicked families refused to give MMR vaccine to their children. The study, published in Lancet in 1998, has been described as a "disgracefully bad piece of work" by one scientist. He said it had "ruined" the vaccination programme and, as a result, children had died of measles and mumps.

Another discredited research, for which Lancet has been hammered, warned women against Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) suggesting that it could increase — almost double — the risks of breast cancer. The magazine made it worse for itself by lending its weight to the study by editorially backing its findings, which independent experts described as "inflammatory". The journal also faced embarrassment when a study on the damaging effects of genetically-modified potatoes, published by it, was found to have been based on poor research.

"Okay, okay," say Lancet supporters, "but are a handful of cases, no matter how controversial and flawed enough to dismiss a 180-year-old institution?" Yes, that is how old Lancet is and, as its editor Richard Horton has rightly said in its defence, it has an impeccable record of contributing to public health and generating debate on vital issues. What, if it went over the top on a few occasions?

Then, there is the context: the Royal Society's attack was provoked by a stinging criticism of the Society by Lancet in a recent editorial calling it an institution that had run out of steam, and was resting on its "historical laurels." In a sense, the Royal Society's outrage at Lancet's "flawed" record is not entirely altruistic — and as one commentator put it, it is a case of people living in glasshouses throwing stones at each other.

But beyond the Royal Society-Lancet spat is the larger issue: the credibility of scientific research and its effect on ordinary people in an information age when, thanks to the "24/7" news cycle, they are constantly exposed to new developments in science. And the messages they get are, often, contradictory creating not only confusion but also panic when they discover that something they had been brought up to believe was safe or good for health is suddenly "found" to be dangerous.

So, is tea good or bad for health? Is a glass of wine good for the heart, or a prescription for a stroke? Red meat a source of protein or bowel cancer? MMR a protection against measles, mumps and rubella or an invitation to autism?

A cynical answer is: depending on the research of the day. At one level, some confusion, some uncertainty is perhaps inevitable when so much research is going on around the world with different teams of scientists often trying to find answers to the same questions. And who can deny the benefits of more research?

But precisely because more research is being done, there is greater need for a more rigorous approach to evaluating research — and putting in the public domain "findings" that are likely to cause a scare. It is all too easy to flog the mainstream media for "hyping" stories, but as The Times pointed out there would always be an element of hype because newspapers and broadcasters "rarely" have the necessary expertise "to analyse independently each study" and rely on "peer-reviewed journals to get it right." "There will always be an element of hype, even in quality newspapers, but the problem would be much worse if a serious journal were hyping too," it said in an editorial. A serious journal such as Lancet for example?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Towards a better informed society

Moving towards closer integration

Where caste oppression mocks the Constitution

The scourge of Africa

Life on other planets

Scientists take on science media

A slice of India in a corner of China

Basics of economics don't change

RSS praise for Indira

Amusing

Advani's Jinnah remark

Fuel price hike

English & Tamil