Best-practice guidelines for science reporting

These are from the UK Science Media Centre, part of its submission to the Leveson Inquiry

• State the source of the story – e.g. interview, conference, journal article, a survey from a charity or trade body, etc. – ideally with enough information for readers to look it up or a web link.
•  Specify the size and nature of the study – e.g. who/what were the subjects, how long did it last, what was tested or was it an observation? If space, mention the major limitations.
• When reporting a link between two things, indicate whether or not there is evidence that one causes the other.
• Give a sense of the stage of the research – e.g. cells in a laboratory or trials in humans – and a realistic time-frame for any new treatment or technology.
•  On health risks, include the absolute risk whenever it is available in the press release or the research paper – i.e. if ’cupcakes double cancer risk’ state the outright risk of that cancer, with and without cupcakes.
•  Especially on a story with public health implications, try to frame a new finding in the context of other evidence – e.g. does it reinforce or conflict with previous studies? If it attracts serious scientific concerns, they should not be ignored.
•  If space, quote both the researchers themselves and external sources with appropriate expertise. Be wary of scientists and press releases over-claiming for studies.
• Distinguish between findings and interpretation or extrapolation; don’t suggest health advice if none has been offered.
•  Remember patients: don’t call something a ’cure’ that is not a cure.
• Headlines should not mislead the reader about a story’s contents and quotation marks should not be used to dress up overstatement

This blog would be a lot less interesting (except to rugby fans) if the media followed these guidelines.  I think the second-last item is the only one that hasn’t been the basis for one or more posts.     (via)