Debate: We must maintain trust between the university and the general population
Health researchers need to communicate new knowledge in the mass media, even in cases where their results can lead to an overload of the healthcare system. But this communication must be done in a responsible manner based on the universities' code of conduct for responsible conduct of research.
By Lars Bo Nielsen, Dean of the Faculty of Health, Aarhus University
Two articles in the Danish newspaper Politiken about cancer risks in the same week in December led to a debate about the communication of research in the media. The two news items; that contraceptive pills could increase the risk of cancer, and that medicines that lower blood pressure could cause skin cancer, were both based on new research findings from Danish researchers. After the news spread from the newspaper’s front pages and out into the enormous media landscape, it led to a busy time for general practitioners as they were contacted by concerned patients. Subsequently, it has given rise to a debate about whether researchers should be more cautious about publicising their research in the media. Simply to avoid worrying people unnecessarily.
A proposal to refrain from communicating research results because they will – in a simplified journalistic context – scare people more than they will enlighten them is actually plausible. Making patients who take medication for high blood pressure anxious with a news item about how their treatment may trigger a new disorder is hardly going to benefit public health.
Universities may not practice censorship
However, we must fundamentally be extremely cautious about imposing any filter on the knowledge that is created at the universities before it becomes available to the general public. Of course, a published study is by its very nature publicly accessible. This was the case with the two news items about contraceptive pills and a particular type of blood-pressure medication, both of which could trigger a cancer disease. It is pointless to say that society should not be informed about this, even though some people might think that doing so can cause undue worry for some patients. But clearly things need to be put into perspective. For example, this does not mean that a twenty-year-old woman who has not had a mother, aunt or grandmother who have had breast cancer has a high risk of developing cancer, even though she takes contraceptive pills. We underestimate people if we think things are too complicated to explain.
We have a massive responsibility in connection with the communication part. And it must be taken seriously. Because today, researchers do not enjoy the same authority and credibility as previously. This was before the post-factual society, fake news and stories about researchers who doctor their results to get media coverage and more grants.
At Health, Aarhus University, we have adopted principles for responsible research communication – as a supplement to our standards for responsible conduct of research.
The principles are a set of simple guidelines for media coverage of new research results, and Health is perhaps the first in Denmark to adopt an ethical code for research communication. The principles are credibility, transparency and dialogue.
Accurate product information
The principle of credibility means that the communications department will only produce press coverage of new research results, if these are based on a scientific article which has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. We are committed to delaying the publication of the press release until after the article itself has been published. In case of PhD dissertations and articles, publication will only take place after agreement with the principal supervisor.
The principle of transparency means that we include accurate ‘product information’ in our press releases – supplementary information on circumstances such as the type of study, partners, external funding, possible conflicts of interest and naturally a link to an abstract or the scientific article itself.
Finally, the principle of dialogue means that we engage in close dialogue with the researcher in order to ensure that we have aligned our expectations about the process and the premises for press contact, and that the researcher knows what kind of contract can be made with the journalist.
The purpose of responsible research communication is to increase trust. Between media and researchers and between researchers and the general population. We also have a goal of safeguarding the authority and credibility of both researchers and universities among the population. As a university, we must not fall into the trap of thinking that we help most by keeping back results that may worry or even scare the population. On the other hand, we must also be thorough in providing information and perspective on the significance of the results the context that they can shed light on. Both for the individual and in a larger social perspective. Otherwise we will be neglecting our duty.
Read more about the principles for responsible research communication
The column was in Science Report on Monday tge 29th of January 2018.