Listening Part 4 You will hear part of a podcast discussion about how the findings of scientific research are reported in the media. You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions. On the podcast today, we're examining the issue of how the findings of scientific research get reported in the media, namely the problem of exaggeration and hype. What are the causes and what can be done about it? With me are Dr. Peter Summer, a psychologist with a special interest in the representation of science in the media, and Dr. Marion Grayson, Professor of Science Communication at Redbridge University. Hello. Hi, Peter. Let's start with the role of the university press officer. They put out a press release when scientists at the university publish a study with the hope that journalists pick this up and write a story on it. Would you say that there's an intrinsic motivation for press officers to overstate study findings? It's inevitable there'll be some exaggerations because there's pressure to get publicity for the institution. That's their job after all. But having said that, there's also a very strong competing desire the institution as trustworthy. Ultimately, for the university, it's more important to keep that stamp of authority than for any individual science story to get splashed across the press. So which elements of a press release are most critical to get right? The first few lines, the bit that's there to hook the reader. Some press officers assume that as long as they explain the study's findings accurately in the body of the press release, it doesn't matter if the first few lines are simplistic. I would strongly disagree with that. We know from psychology that what you read first affects how you interpret the rest. That's why getting it right matters. Marion, do you agree? Absolutely. I've recently been looking at the use of buzzwords in press releases, and there's been a big rise recently. The kind of words I'm talking about are groundbreaking, world-first, and landmark study. You get the idea. What the public doesn't understand is that most scientific results don't qualify as groundbreaking. A single study will almost never revolutionize an entire scientific discipline. What counts is the broader body of knowledge to which that single publication adds, and what we can learn from that edition to further build on it. We need the complete picture, and that's not something press releases deliver. So are press officers ultimately to blame for overhyped science stories getting into the press? Scientists, press officers, and journalists are all involved and often shift the blame onto each other. Of course, press officers are responsible for misinformation in press releases, but at the same time journalists are responsible if inaccuracies get to the public via their articles. Crucially though, if the press office publishes hyped up press releases, then it's the job of the scientist to notice this and protest. Peter, what do you think? The thing is, if it all goes wrong, it's the scientist who will be held accountable, not the press officer. So, scientists have to keep an eye on what's being said about their work. At the same time, universities need to make sure they train press officers to do their job properly in the 1st place so that they're consistently releasing correct information. And what about the role of journalists, Marion? You know, very few newspapers have dedicated science journalists these days. Most science news is written by general journalists who don't have a science background. So they take university press releases at face value, something they'd never do with press releases from a company or political party. Any hype then feeds into the articles that journalists write, and then you have the risk of the public being misinformed. So what are the solutions? Peter, let me ask you first. Well, one would be the journalistic quote code. This mandates that whenever a journalist writes about a study, they have to Call in an independent expert, ask for an assessment of the research, and then quote them in the final article. And in the meantime, until that's taken up widely, science media centers can bridge the gap. These exist in a number of countries and act as intermediaries between scientists and journalists. They collect independent comments on new studies for the benefit of journalists. My intuition tells me that their approach really works, but as a science communication researcher, I'm itching to investigate and quantify the difference they make. But anyway, yes, the upshot is that journalists should always quote an independent expert to show readers that they've done their job properly. On the podcast today, we're examining the issue of how the findings of scientific research get reported in the media, namely the problem of exaggeration and hype. What are the causes and what can be done about it? With me are Dr. Peter Summer, a psychologist with a special interest in the representation of science in the media, and Dr. Marion Grayson, Professor of Science Communication at Redbridge University. Hello. Hi. Peter, let's start with the role of the university press officer. They put out a press release when scientists at the university publish a study with the hope that journalists pick this up and write a story on it. Would you say that there's an intrinsic motivation for press officers to overstate study findings? It's inevitable there'll be some exaggerations because there's pressure to get publicity for the institution. That's their job, after all. But having said that, there's also a very strong competing desire to present the institution as trustworthy. Ultimately, for the university, it's more important to keep that stamp of authority than for any individual science story to get splashed across the press. So which elements of a press release are most critical to get right? The first few lines, the bit that's there to hook the reader. Some press officers assume that as long as they explain the study's findings accurately in the body of the press release, it doesn't matter if the first few lines are simplistic. I would strongly disagree with that. We know from psychology that what you read first affects how you interpret the rest. That's why getting it right matters. Marion, do you agree? Absolutely. I've recently been looking at the use of buzzwords in press releases, and there's been a big rise recently. The kind of words I'm talking about are groundbreaking, world first, and landmark study. You get the idea. What the public doesn't understand is that most scientific results don't qualify as groundbreaking. A single study will almost never revolutionize an entire scientific discipline. What counts is the broader body of knowledge to which that single publication adds and what we can learn from that edition to further build on it. We need the complete picture, and that's not something press releases deliver. So are press officers ultimately to blame for overhyped science stories getting into the press? Scientists, press officers, and journalists are all involved and often shift the blame onto each other. Of course, press officers are responsible for misinformation in press releases, but at the same time journalists are responsible if inaccuracies get to the public via their articles. Crucially though, if the press office publishes hyped up press releases, then it's the job of the scientist to notice this and protest. Peter, what do you think? The thing is, if it all goes wrong, it's the scientist who will be held accountable, not the press officer. So, scientists have to keep an eye on what's being said about their work. At the same time, universities need to make sure they train press officers to do their job properly in the 1st place so that they're consistently releasing correct information. And what about the role of journalists, Marion? You know, very few newspapers have dedicated science journalists these days. Most science news is written by general journalists who don't have a science background. So they take university press releases at face value, something they'd never do with press releases from a company or political party. Any hype then feeds into the articles that journalists write, and then you have the risk of the public being misinformed. So what are the solutions? Peter, let me ask you first. Well, one would be the journalistic quote code. This mandates that whenever a journalist writes about a study, they have to Call in an independent expert, ask for an assessment of the research, and then quote them in the final article. And in the meantime, until that's taken up widely, science media centres can bridge the gap. These exist in a number of countries and act as intermediaries between scientists and journalists. They collect independent comments on new studies for the benefit of journalists. My intuition tells me that their approach really works, but as a science communication researcher, I'm itching to investigate and quantify the difference they make. But anyway, yes, the upshot is that journalists should always quote an independent expert to show readers that they've done their job properly. That is the end of Part 4.