| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Special Article |
1 From the Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, Florida International University, Miami; the US Department of Agriculture, US Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC; the Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; and the Nutrition Department, Kraft Foods, Inc, Glenview, IL.
2 Summary of a session presented at Experimental Biology `97 in New Orleans.
3 Address reprint requests to NS Wellman, Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, Florida International University, OE 200, National Policy and Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging, Miami, FL 33199. E-mail: wellmann{at}fiu.edu.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: Dietary guidance • publicity • science journalism • communicating research • media • nutrition
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
According to a 1997 Roper Center Survey (3), Americans distrust the news, finding it too sensationalized, too manipulated by special interests, too biased, and too reliant on quotes from unnamed sources. Likewise, surveys suggest that increasing consumer confusion about diet and health, derived in part from inconsistent and out-of-context advice reported in the media (4), is generating public distrust of dietary guidance. In a recent survey, 78% of primary household shoppers believed it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that in the next 5 y experts would have a completely different idea about which foods were healthy and which were not (5).
Journalists themselves are increasingly aware of and concerned about public mistrust of the news. Some journalists decry the blending of entertainment with news (6), and others have specifically addressed public confusion over science reporting (7). Major media have featured articles that attempt to help readers understand how studies are hyped, how news releases may stretch the truth, and how facts can be manipulated (8–10).
As the source of much of the nutrition information featured in the media, nutrition scientists also need to examine their roles and responsibilities in providing nutrition news. In particular, practices regarding the reporting of the findings of single studies, which may appear to conflict with the larger body of knowledge on a subject or which may be the first published finding on the subject, need to be scrutinized. This commentary examines whether the scientific process and the development of dietary guidance for the public are facilitated when new findings from single studies are publicized, as debated during an American Society for Nutritional Sciences Controversy Session during Experimental Biology `97 in New Orleans.
|
BENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE STUDIES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
Such coverage has benefited consumers. The communication of individual studies has led to greater public awareness of diet and health, helping to increase public receptivity to lifestyle changes. As awareness of the potential effect of nutrition on health grows, the public demands information immediately. The public does not want to wait years until research findings conclusively define relations between specific diseases and diet. If insights derived from single studies are presented prudently and accurately within the context of accepted public health guidance, the public can benefit as nutrition knowledge expands.
It is also important to note that given the public demand for nutrition information, nutrition news will continue to be communicated. Who should be the communicator: popular books and reports authored by persons without training in nutrition, or journalists who talk at length with individual scientists to appreciate the intricacies of the subject? It is rare that the scientist writes the report for the media; rather, the scientist works with an editor or journalist vis-à-vis (as a counterpart) and it is then the editor's or journalist's responsibility to explain and simplify the scientific concepts or material. Although it can be argued that governmental agencies, professional organizations, or other legitimate groups should be charged with nutrition communication, the reality is that the media in cooperation with individual nutrition scientists may often be the primary sources of insight and perspective on nutrition issues.
One of the most important advantages to publicity about nutrition research findings is that the publicity leads to excitement about particular areas of research and subsequently may increase the amount of public and private dollars available for research. For example, current excitement about breast cancer research has led to more abundant funding for this type of research. The public became excited about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment opportunities, which spurred Congress to make money available to research the issue. This type of excitement can lead to funding through private institutions as well.
From the point of view of nutrition scientists, the publication of single studies in the scientific literature can be thought of as a fundamental obligation of scientists. Single studies represent the lifeblood of science, the fountain of discovery on which science is built. By publishing single studies, we test hypotheses, generate new ones, and propel research forward. As new results emerge, they must be replicated and refined. New ideas follow and lead to further studies. However, publishing the results of studies in the scientific literature is not equivalent to publicizing them through the public media.
|
DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE STUDIES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
Although scientists generally understand the limitations of single studies, consumers are less likely to do so. The "significant scientific agreement" standard is the foundation for the formulation of many federal food and nutrition policies. Yet the standard itself has been subject to a wide range of interpretation. The National Policy Dialogue on Food, Nutrition, and Health (11) attempted to explain the complexities of the standard by using a flowchart, along with a recommendation for continued "objective, flexible and responsive" use in the Food and Drug Administration approval process for health claims on food products.
Meta-analysis and pooled analysis are approaches sometimes used to assess significant scientific agreement. Meta-analysis statistically integrates the results of individual studies, whereas pooled analysis integrates the data of individual studies. These approaches are increasingly being used as evidence-based medicine encourages physicians to rely more on current research and systematic, comprehensive reviews in making clinical decisions (12, 13). Other health disciplines are also moving toward evidence-based practice (14, 15). Nutrition scientists and epidemiologists are using these integrative analytic techniques to provide more meaningful and conclusive summaries as the basis for dietary guidance. Independent study findings may be misleading alone, especially if sample sizes are small, substantial bias exists, numerous confounders are uncontrolled, or exposure is not measured reliably. If there is a divergence of opinion among researchers, integrative analyses and reviews help researchers determine areas needing further examination and work.
Although there is a tendency for the scientific community to blame the media for contradictory and often sensationalized stories, print and broadcast media deadlines sometimes demand that stories be completed whether or not the author or authors of a scientific piece are available for comment. Also, we must look at other sources that add to consumer confusion, including ourselves. Scientific journals, professional societies, universities, the food industry, and, most importantly, we scientists contribute to the problem. The game of grantsmanship and professional ambition leads some scientists to present their findings as exciting or even revolutionary, while downplaying the consistency of published nutrition research. Enthusiasm or ego may override objectivity. As pointed out earlier, an overwhelming majority of adults (78% of those surveyed) feel there will be fundamental changes in dietary guidance, even though dietary advice has been remarkably consistent in the past 20 y (5).
Furthermore, the formats in which findings are presented in the popular media are overly simplistic. Foods are often portrayed as being good or bad for health. If a scientist seeks to qualify statements with too many caveats, it is sometimes taken by the media or the public as a sign of waffling. In particular, single-study information about food and nutrition increases consumer confusion if presented without enough context. Consumers need to know not only what to eat (or what not to eat), but how much, how often, and to whom the advice applies. Yet, <10% of media stories mention these 3 contextual elements (4).
In the same vein, by commenting on a single study without the benefit of retrospection and discussion with others, scientists relinquish their roles as mediators of debates about scientific matters. In essence, they turn the responsibility over to the media. Professional society and research conference meetings are more appropriate forums for debate about new findings than the popular press. At these meetings, an issue can be debated among scientists who understand the historical and scientific context of new findings and, generally, some of the motivation or bias behind data interpretation (16).
In addition to the erosion of consumers' confidence in dietary advice, publicity about results from single studies could, ironically, lead to the loss of research support. When results from single studies are presented in a compelling, conclusive manner, they can discourage continued research, even though the existing body of science is incomplete and insufficient for dietary guidance.
|
HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION SCIENTISTS CAN HELP THE MEDIA DO A BETTER JOB REPORTING SINGLE STUDIES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
What study authors can do
Individual scientists should become more aware of the potential for improper reporting of research results in the popular press throughout the multistep process of publishing and publicizing their studies. Not just their own personal credibility but that of the entire discipline is at stake. Guidelines for communicating emerging science on nutrition, food safety, and health were developed recently to help scientists ensure that sound science is the basis for reports on single studies and that improved public understanding of nutrition and health is the result (17).
Study authors can start to take responsibility for accurate reporting beginning with the selection of the journal in which their study is to be published. Some journals regularly issue press releases for promotional purposes (18, 19). Reputable promotion practices include carefully written and researched releases that provide balanced discussion of study results. Nutrition scientists should review any and all press releases written by journal editors or staff and institutional or university public information officers. Ideally, the introduction and discussion sections of a paper should be written so that excerpts can be used without extensive change by the popular press, which facilitates accurate reporting. In some cases, however, findings may be so new and surprising that wide dissemination before confirmation in further work would be inappropriate. In this instance, the author may choose a journal that does not aggressively solicit media coverage.
In describing the findings of studies, either within publications or press releases or when responding to questions from journalists, authors also have an obligation to put their overall findings into perspective with a balanced interpretation of their results. All caveats should be included in the published study to help journalists and the public understand the limitations of a piece of research. For example, when dealing with an in vitro study or an animal study that assumes a particular model explains human carcinogenesis, we should emphasize that our results were generated in a particular model system. If we are doing observational epidemiology, we should point that out and say that we may not be able to fully control for effects that may be linked to lifestyles correlated with diet. Scientists should also point out whether other scientific approaches corroborate the new findings.
In areas that have public health implications, scientists should comment on whether and how new findings affect public health recommendations. They should also distinguish between science that may be convincing enough for some individuals to make personal decisions and science conclusive enough to affect public policy and national dietary guidance. Likewise, if there are no public health implications or if there is only a limited group to whom the new information applies, that should be emphasized.
Other actions recommended to improve reporting on food and nutrition
Additional actions recommended at the controversy session by speakers and the audience to improve reporting on food and nutrition are provided in Table 1
. These include specific suggestions for training scientists to more effectively communicate scientific findings to the media and for collaborating with the media to improve reporting. In addition, suggestions are provided to improve the overall process of disseminating scientific findings.
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBENEFITS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...DRAWBACKS OF PUBLICIZING SINGLE...HOW INDIVIDUAL NUTRITION...REFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. D Miller, N. L Cohen, V. L Fulgoni, S. B Heymsfield, and N. S Wellman From nutrition scientist to nutrition communicator: why you should take the leap Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2006; 83(6): 1272 - 1275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
