According to a new paper in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), exaggerated claims in health-related news stories — including advice that isn’t supported by evidence — may often have their roots in academic press releases and the scientists that sanction them. The paper highlights conflicting interests in the flow of information from research institutions to end users that has the potential to undermine evidence-informed decisions, and even possibly increase risks to health.
To be clear, I work closely with communications and press staff at my own institution and others, and have great respect for what they do. They bring essential expertise to making academic research understandable and accessible to a wider audience. Yet I’ve also been critical in the past of unhelpful exaggeration and speculation in academic press releases. This latest study underlines my concerns with clear evidence of exaggerated reporting rooted in the scientific community.
Exaggeration in health related academic press releases
The study focused on press releases from 20 UK universities, and compared top-level claims in the releases with the papers they were based on, together with media stories that resulted. In their analysis, the study’s authors specifically considered advice to readers that supported behavior change; causal statements drawn from correlational results; and inference to humans from animal research.
In the 462 press releases examined, 40% contained exaggerated advice, 33% contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% exaggerated the relevance to humans of animal studies.
The study also found that exaggeration in press releases spilled over to media coverage (see figures below) – 58% of news articles evaluated contained similar exaggerations to those in the associated press releases. In contrast, where press releases didn’t exaggerate the research, only 17% of associated news articles exaggerated the findings. In addition, caveats on the validity and applicability of research in the publications were rarely reflected in press releases.
Interestingly, there was no statistically significant indication that press releases with exaggerated claims received greater pickup in the media.
The authors note that the study was correlational, and so does not demonstrate a causal relation between inflated statements in press releases and inflated news. They do however point to a growing body of research that points to press releases as being the main source of science news.
Bad advice increases health risks
While I suspect that this study highlights practices that are endemic across academic disciplines, it’s particularly concerning for risk-related research. Media-based health advice can and does change how people behave when it comes to their health. And bad advice can lead to compromised health and reduced well-being.
Of course, with any media coverage, there’s a certain degree of responsibility on the reader’s part to not blindly accept what they are told (not to mention the responsibility journalists have to dig beneath the hype). Yet citing peer review research as the source of advice provides a provenance that I suspect many people find it hard to resist. There is certainly a chain of trust between the researcher and reader that depends on responsible representation and reporting at all stages of the communication process. Unfortunately, this study provides evidence that the chain is being compromised at source in some cases.
Promotion versus communication
Part of the problem I suspect is conflicting purposes behind university press releases. It’s often assumed that these are aimed at translating research findings to a non-expert audience – to make them accessible to people who might benefit from the information. While this is undoubtedly a factor, it’s not the only factor — and probably not the most important one — in crafting a press release. Branding, publicity and fund raising are all vitally important to universities – especially in the U.S. And one way to increase all three is to promote transformative, high-value and high-impact research. The more effectively an institution can promote its brand in the public sphere, the easier it is to attract the students, donors and funding that keep the wheels of academia turning.
Researcher responsibility
Promotion and marketing is, in part, what’s expected of communication offices. But this conflict between promotion and communication also trickles down to researchers, where media interest can increase citations and funding, as well as providing a sense of influence and importance. As the paper’s authors note,
“Most press releases issued by universities are drafted in dialogue between scientists and press officers and are not released without the approval of scientists, and thus most of the responsibility for exaggeration must lie with the scientific authors”
This is the bit that really concerns me. There’s a massive temptation to conflate the significance of research (you only need to read the conclusions section of many peer review papers to see this), and to let exaggeration and mis-representation slip into press releases. Yet where misleading information is used by real people to make life-impacting decisions, such slippage can only be seen as irresponsible.
In an accompanying editorial to the BMJ paper, Ben Goldacre suggests that
“all academic press releases should have named authors, including both the press officers involved and the individual named academics from the original academic paper. This would create professional reputational consequences for misrepresenting scientific findings in a press release, which would parallel the risks around misrepresenting science in an academic paper”
This would do a lot to help curb the excesses of “publicity at the expense of accuracy”. Yet even without such overt accountability, it would be good to see a culture of responsibility develop amongst academics and academic institutions that placed the health and well-being of their constituencies before their own aggrandizement.
Paper: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. Petroc Sumner et al. BMJ 2014; 349 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015 (Published 10 December 2014)
Editorial: Preventing bad reporting on health research. ben Goldacre. BMJ 2014; 349 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7465 (Published 10 December 2014)
Press release: Most exaggeration in health news is already present in academic press releases. Eurekalert
Update 12/13/14 Title changed from “Scientist: Seeking publicity; accuracy optional” to “Researchers should take more responsibility for exaggeration in press releases”
Are you referring to studies like this? http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1789247
About the time this and a couple other studies came out, the authors desided that something that doesn’t work for well nourished, medically well educated, 65 year old men(all doctors), it doesn’t work for anyone ever. (This discusses cognitive decline.)
From these findings I can tell that no one anywhere ever needs to be worried about nutrition, right;-)
Good to see someone quantifying what we have been discussing as an issue here in Australia for some time now, albeit a discussion among a small community of science communicators and a discussion usually more akin to the water cooler chat than anything formal. It is certainly something I was conscious of in my time as media officer at CSIRO and University of Melbourne. I had two good mentors that frowned upon spinning a story for the sake of publicity or counting media hits. It was always the science that had to be the story. The Institution was more or less shoved into the background, though today there are often many competing interests in a story. It was often a battle to convince the numerous industry and other partners that getting their name and logo up top and in the lead sentence was not the way it worked. It was a battle you sometimes lost, or at best compromised on. Communicators versus marketers – each having different priorities, each in their own department with their own Manager. Makes things messy, but there is a limit to the power of the lowly press officer. Hence a call to put their name on the media release, although good, might change little, unless the press officer name is accompanied by the press office manager’s name and he/she takes the heat.
Jason Major
Australia
Thanks Jason. There are some great communications staff out there in institutions that push hard for meaningful and unspun comms – but at the same time I realize how hard it is to serve multiple purposes. One of the really important takeaways from the current paper though is the apparent lack of additional pickup press releases get when the claims are exaggerated. There are definitely exceptions to this – but it seems that the general rule may be that it’s the science, not the hype, that makes the story.
Now to convince scientists and their institutions of this!
Hi Andrew! Thanks, I’m delighted to have found this research through your good offices. It bolsters a perception I’ve developed after reading hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of academic news releases. I did write on a similar topic about a year ago, something I called a ‘look at me’ headline in a news release but the misleading headline was based on the title for the research paper. In that case, I felt the researchers had let their desire to bring attention to their work override their better instincts. Anyway, now I’ve found this piece I’m trying to figure out how I could incorporate it into a new piece. Or at last resort, I can add it to the 2013 post as an addendum. Cheers, Maryse PS If we don’t communicate before then, Merry Christmas & Happy New Year (Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année)!
Thanks Maryse, and a Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année in return! Could you post a link to your “look at me” piece?
Hi Andrew! It was some research from NCSU and the University of Minnesota, lead author Jennifer Kuzma. Here’s the link to the 2013 post, http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=11508. I start unpacking the ‘look at me’ title about 40% of the way down. Other than the attempt to get attention by over asserting the conclusions in the head, it was a very good paper.
I noticed the latest from this team, has a more restrained title (link to latest post: http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=15379). My guess is they tried something last year and realized they weren’t comfortable with it. Unfortunately, going past your comfort zone (marketing- and publicity-wise) means you might inadvertently step over your integrity line and the thing is, you don’t know until you’ve done it. Cheers, Maryse
Most researchers couldn’t write a press release if their lives depended on it. Which is why most researchers don’t (or at least shouldn’t) write them.
Universities and research institutions generally hire/employ people with a background in PR or journalism specifically to write press releases. The fault of exaggeration lies squarely with whoever is responsible for signing off the press release (who may or may not have a science qualification). So I doubt the problem is going away any time soon. It would certainly be a start if the lead researcher had the final say on signing off of a press release and, as has already been suggested, the name of the writer(s) was included in the document.
As regards the news media in general, too many science stories are covered by staff with little or no science science background at all. It doesn’t help either when source material isn’t referenced, allowing them to get away with blaming others for misrepresentation and exaggeration.
I suspect in most academic institutions researchers are expected to sign off on press releases. The fact that there is so much exaggeration suggests that they either don’t read what they sign off on, or they approve of the exaggeration.
Agree that there is a major issue in well trained and qualified science reporters – all the more need for the science community to help them as much as possible.
Dear Andrew, big congrats for this excellent piece! Sound and appropriate.
Cheers from Brazil!
D. Umpierre