The "B" word
Faye Austin, Ph.D., director for research at DFCI; former researcher and policymaker at the National Cancer Institute: "In my previous governmental role, reporters looking for official endorsements from funding agencies often asked me to comment on breakthroughs that were going to appear in the press. My focus was always on what the investigator was saying about the findings and on trying to keep some balance. I found you never know what's going to end up in a sound bite or in print, and what I said often didn't come across reflecting a balance of enthusiasm and caution, as intended."
Faye Austin, Ph.D., director for research at Dana-Farber.
Mayer: " 'Breakthrough' is a word I don't particularly like, but it's used a great deal. Socalled breakthroughs benefit the investigator, the sponsor, and the media, which is in business to publish news. And, at times, the word 'breakthrough' benefits us because it gets the news of our institution in front of the public. As a clinician, the question I ask is, what does it do for our patients? Last spring we had reputable reporters from a network TV newsmagazine talking to us about a new drug being investigated here. We spent a lot of time describing why it was scientifically important, and how we might use this therapy in the future. Yet what was eventually reported to the public was mostly a human-interest story. Most references to the science and what makes this drug unique were eliminated. It can be a very slippery slope to present medical information to benefit — not mislead — the patients we serve."
Austin: "Do you think medical stories are distorted more often in broadcast media than in print media?"
Sallan: "Absolutely! The fact that people get most of their medical information from the news media — and probably most of that from television where the usual story takes somewhere between 30 and 90 seconds — makes it hard to believe we don't have more misperceptions."
"Part of it is just human nature. We want news, excitement, breakthroughs — and we want hope."
— Stephen Sallan, M.D.
Steven Joffe, M.D., fellow, Harvard University Center for Ethics and the Professions: "I think there's a public perception that science moves in breakthroughs. The media, in that sense, gives the public what it's looking for. But we know that science moves in fits and starts. There are blind alleys, and actual breakthroughs are quite rare. I would love for people to understand that science is steady, but moves slowly and incrementally. What may appear as a 'breakthrough' is more likely work somebody has been building on for 10 years."
Shulman: "There are different players, but all the motivations are lined up in one way. Scientists want to be recognized for their work. If there's a pharmaceutical company involved, it's important for it to build enthusiasm to support funding and stock price. The news media won't report that, 'There's this modestly interesting finding that probably won't have any implications for human beings, and it will be years before it's actually in the clinic.' They're motivated to make the story more exciting. With all forces going in the same direction, I think the question is: How can we better portray the findings in the studies we do?"
- Next: Public education
- Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
