5th World Conference of Science Journalists

PRODUCER: Gael Jennings

CHAIR: Fiona Fox

SPEAKERS: Simon Chapman, Catriona Bonfiglioli, Sophie Scott, Christina Scott,

SESSION REPORT: Distinguish science from spin

By Hannah Hoag

Sometimes, evidence-based medicine is misreported because it is complicated or counter-intuitive. At Good for You: Public Health for Public Good producer Gael Jennings promised to remind science journalists and communicators how to produce stories that don’t over-promote or muzzle public health, but deliver the facts.

Using a scenario plucked from Australian newspapers and televisions, Jennings and her panel members lead the audience through a mock press conference where Alex Barrett of the University of Sydney — playing the role of a medical oncologist and head of the Australian Cancer Agency[ck] — spoke out strongly against a media campaign promoting universal PSA screening. Simon Chapman also of the University of Sydney played the role of the prostate cancer survivor, incensed that Barrett could “condemn so many men to death” with his “irresponsible comments.”

The journalists questioned the panel about the roots of their beliefs and for the evidence that supported their statements, before being reeled-in for debriefing. Chapman told how the story had played out in the media, and Barrett followed-up with a presentation of the facts. “There is huge faith in communities about screening and testing, but almost no experts support screening for prostate cancer screening,” said Chapman. He analyzed the media coverage following the controversy and found that of 436 direct quotes about screening (during a sample period), only 14 percent expressed any caution or concern about PSA testing.

“Many science journalists ran with the controversial,” said Jennings. “But the test doesn’t work that well with aggressive cancers and the treatment is disabling.” For every 1 million men screened, 110,000 would have elevated PSAs and face the anxiety of cancer. About 90,000 would have the biopsy; 20,000 would be diagnosed with cancer. If 10,000 opted for surgery, 10 would die, 300 would develop urinary incontinence and 4,000 would become impotent.

“Cancer screening is a two-edged sword,” said Barrett. “About half the detected cancers would never affect your health.”