Getting the facts straight -The art of communicating good science

<% Dim Conn, dbPath dbPath = "D:\inetpub\wwwroot\bongologic\fpdb\afic_up.mdb" Set Conn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection") Conn.Open "PROVIDER=MICROSOFT.JET.OLEDB.4.0;DATA SOURCE=" & dbPath Set Session("_conn") = conn %> <% sqlArtDetails = "SELECT * FROM t_Articles Where Article_ID = "& Request.QueryString("ArtID")&"" Set rsArtDetails = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Recordset") rsArtDetails.Open sqlArtDetails, conn, 3, 3 %> Getting the facts straight -The art of communicating good science t_Articles AFIC

More AFIC Links

	Dietary Guidelines
	Foodborne Illness
	Food Safety (Non-Microbial)
	Diet and the Prevention of Chronic Disease
	Children?s and Infants Diet
	Communicating Science
	Weight Management
	Hydration
	Physical Activity
	Oral Health
	Agriculture and Food Production
	Food Ingredients and Additives
	Biotechnology
	Labelling and Regulations
	Functional Foods and Supplements

Journalist access

to expert database

Getting the facts straight -The art of communicating good science

t_Articles

For as long as diet books continue to be best-sellers and food issues make the headlines, there can be no doubt that the public is interested in nutrition, food safety and health. But just how should health professionals, educators and reporters in Asia translate scientific studies into meaningful consumer information without the public becoming confused?

A report publsihedd recently in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) in the US, provides guidelines for the communication of food-related science in a way which meets the needs of the communications, as well as being understandable to the public.

Based on a consensus recommendation of an advisory group of experts convened by the Harvard School of Public Health and International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation, the guidelines aim to help clarify the communication of emerging scientific information. The advisory group was composed of key opinion leaders throughout the communications chain including scientists, journalists, food industry and consumers.

The guidelines also reflect contributions from nutrition researchers, food scientists, journal editors, university press officers, broadcast and print reporters, consumer groups and food industry executives who participated in eight roundtables around the United States following the initial advisory group meeting.

Communication of a new study involves various parts of the communications chain. The goal is to enable the communication of food-related science in ways that serve both public understanding and objectives of the nutrition and health community. The report acknowledges the different needs of each group and outlines guidelines for each. Firstly, there are general guidelines relevant for all communicators regardless of professional background. They are followed by more specific sets of guidelines tailored for various groups in the communications chain including scientists, journal editors, journalists and industry, consumer and interest groups.

Studies show that the media is the most often used source of nutrition and food safety information in Asia. A regional study in 1996 reported that television, newspapers and magazines were used by 70-80% of the public. The way in which emerging science is communicated can have powerful effects on the public’s understanding and behavior.

One of the issues dealt with in the report is that of new or single studies which appear to contradict information which has come before. Many people will remember the impact of the study on oats which failed to show a beneficial effect of oats in lowering cholesterol, despite numerous studies in the contrary. This study received significant media coverage and led to confusion amongst consumers. The FDA has since allowed manufacturers of oat products to carry a cholesterol-lowering claim on-pack in view of the overwhelming evidence to support the claim.

Single studies and findings such as those presented at scientific meetings, particularly if they refute previous studies or deal with new findings, usually require additional context and background in order for the average person to use the information.

The guidelines list several questions for communicators to ask themselves to identify the information which best serves the purpose of presenting sound factual information to the public that is easily understandable.

At the end of the day, it’s all about communicating responsibly and effectively. The guidelines are one way to help focus on the most important and relevant information to improve public understanding and provide the context which is critical for consumer choice.

(Improving Public Understanding; Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on nutrition, Food Safety and Health, J. National Cancer Institute, Feb 4, 1998, Volume 90, Number 3; 194-99)

A complete copy of the guidelines can be accessed on the IFIC Foundation On-Line at www.//ificinfo.health.org/resource/guidelines.htm. or contact AFIC for a copy

General Guidelines for The Communications Process

1. Will your communication enhance public understanding diet and health?

Is the study credible enough to warrant public attention?
With the information you provided, will the public be able to properly assess the importance of the findings and whether they should have any immediate bearing on their food choices?
Have you avoided an overly simplistic approach that may inappropriately characterize individual foods, ingredients, or supplements as good or bad? Have you helped the public understand how the food, ingredient, or supplement can be consumed as part of a total healthful diet, or why it should not be consumed?
Have you appropriately represented the study's overall conclusions and avoided highlighting selective findings which, on their own, might present a misleading picture?

2. Have you put the study findings into context?

If the findings are preliminary and non-conclusive, have you made that clear?
If the findings differ with previous studies, have you indicated this and explained why? If the results refute previously released results, do you provide a weight of evidence comparable to the earlier findings?
Have you clarified to whom the findings apply? Have you avoided generalizing the effects when the study was restricted to populations of a certain age or sex or with specific genetic, environmental, or other predisposing conditions?
Have you included information about risk/benefit tradeoffs of consuming or not consuming certain foods, ingredients, or supplements? Have you explained how these risks and benefits compare with other factors (e.g., level of physical activity, genetic history) that may also contribute to health?
In explaining a dietary risk, have you distinguished between population-wide estimates and individual risk? Have you cited statistics on absolute risk and not just relative risk, e.g., expressing an increase in incidence from "one in a million to three in a million" and not just as "three times the risk"?

3. Have the study or findings been peer-reviewed?

Has the study been peer-reviewed by independent scientists or published in a peer-reviewed journal? At the same time, have you understood that while peer review is an important standard, it does not guarantee the findings are definitive or conclusive?
If a study has not been peer-reviewed (e.g., a paper presented at a meeting or convention), are the findings so important that they should be communicated to the public before peer review?
Have you distinguished between actual study findings and editorials or commentaries that may have been written about the study? Have you clarified that an editorial is an expression of personal views and has not always been peer-reviewed? Have you investigated how widely held these views are or whether the editorial represents a narrowly-held opinion?

4. Have you disclosed the important facts about the study?

Have you provided adequate information on the study's original purpose, research design, and methods of data collection and analysis?
Have you acknowledged any limitations or shortcomings the study may have?

5. Have you disclosed all key information about the study's funding?

Have you publicly disclosed all funding sources for the study?
Are you reasonably confident of the study's objectivity and independence?
Have you considered what the funders stand to gain or lose from the study's outcome?
Have you allowed the validity of the science to speak for itself, regardless of the funding?

t_Articles

Copyright © 2004 Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC)
* Permission is granted to media, health and education professionals to use AFIC information resources in part or in full, providing credit is given to its source and AFIC is informed of its use by emailing info@afic.org.
No part of any AFIC information resources or the AFIC logo or its name may be used for any advertising or commercial product promotion purposes or with any commercially branded materials.