Most cancer researchers take care when making media statements about progress in their field. Most science journalists, too, deal with the subject cautiously. Both understand the dangers of raising false hopes. Yet a recent episode in the UK shows how the well-intentioned handling of a story, from laboratory bench to the popular media, can still have unfortunate consequences. The chain began with a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Henderson et al., 1998, 95:5275-5280) showing that mice lacking the glutathione S-transferase gene developed significantly more benign skin tumours, as compared to mice with the gene, when exposed to a polycyclic hydrocarbon. Publication was heralded by a press release from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF), which had partly sponsored the research. “This is a very exciting finding,” said co-author Roland Wolf. “We've shown for the first time that a single gene could be profoundly important in protecting us against cancer. And that's good news because it's easier to manipulate one gene than many”. Ken Brown of the Cancer Research Campaign, which had also funded the work, added: “It's a very important discovery.” An avalanche of publicity followed. The Daily Mail and the Express carried front page pieces with headlines 10 centimetres deep, while on television both the BBC and ITN main evening news bulletins gave the story considerable prominence. Virtually all national newspapers allocated a substantial amount of space to the announcement, and all of the broadcasting channels gave generous amounts of time. There was much talk of a “lung disease breakthrough”, “a cancer prevention pill” and “new drug therapies that prevent many forms of the disease”. Soon, however, all concerned seemed to realize that the episode had been over-blown. The Independent on Sunday, for example, quoted Ken Brown as being surprised at the coverage. He said not only that the relevance of the study to human cancer was uncertain, but also that both Nature and Science had rejected the paper because “it wasn't a major enough discovery for them.” In reality, the perplexities and irritations arose largely from the size and impact of the media blitz, rather than from its detailed content. Although there was some sensationalism, most of the accounts were unusually guarded. Jenny Hope, writing in the Daily Mail, cautiously noted that the discovery “could be the starting point for research leading to new anti-cancer drugs and could eventually mean that genetic engineering could be used to enhance the body's natural defence system.” Such caution may be contrasted with the self-confessed excitement of some of the scientists involved. Much more sober was Paul Nurse, director-general of the ICRF, who was cited in the Guardian’s account. “We are talking about mice, and we are talking about the induction of precancerous growths on skin which have been induced by chemicals,” Nurse said. “It would need to be shown to be relevant to humans.” So why, for at least a day, did banner headlines and TV interviews with cancer researchers dominate public attention ahead of issues such as the middle east peace process, political change in Northern Ireland and famine and conflict in the Sudan? The answer probably rests in one simple observation about the way in which target audiences respond to an announcement of this sort. Science correspondents and editors alike know that medical scientists as a group tend to be exceedingly cautious. They also recognize that cancer research is a time-consuming, incremental process, with countless disappointments along the way. The antennae of even the most level-headed of them twitch, therefore, when researchers announce that a new development is “very exciting”, “good news” and “very important”. Likewise, even if the actual wording of an article is judicious, newspaper readers are impressed by huge headlines on page one. TV viewers are similarly affected when a prime-time programme includes a substantial item about an advance in dealing with a deadly and feared disease. The crucial error in the press release was the failure to point out that although the finding is scientifically exciting, an enormous amount of work remains to be done to determine whether it has any real implications for human cancer. There's another necessary caution. Media coverage like that surrounding the “cancer gene” story re-emphasises the erroneous belief that cancer is a single disease, for which scientists are seeking the cure. It overshadows the reality that many cancers can already be cured if detected sufficiently early, while others may be avoided by lifestyle changes such as not smoking. Reporting that obscures these facts is not only regrettable in terms of public understanding. It could also, for particular individuals, mean the difference between life and death. B Dixon, Bernard Dixon is a freelance science writer based in Middlesex, UK.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Apr 1, 2000
M.M Malini + 2
Open Access