|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, May 22, 2003Over half the British public wrongly believed that medical science was split down the middle about the safety of the MMR vaccine according to a new survey published today by the Economic and Social Research Council. Although almost all scientific experts rejected the claim of a link between MMR and autism, 53% of those surveyed at the height of the media coverage assumed that because both sides of the debate received equal media coverage, there must be equal evidence for each. Only 23% of the population were aware that the bulk of evidence favoured supporters of the vaccine.... ... The study examined 561 media reports on MMR over a seven-month period. 56% of these stories were concentrated in one month between 28th January and 28th February 2002 - described by many scientists as a media 'feeding frenzy'. The focus of the story was the possible link between the MMR jab and autism, a fact mentioned in over two thirds of the articles. While the bulk of evidence showing that the vaccine is safe was used to balance the autism claims in half the television reports, only32% of the broadsheet press reported this. The report says: "Attempts to balance claim about the risks of the MMR jab tended merely to indicate that there were two competing bodies of evidence." The media does have an undue influence on our understanding of science. For most people, the popular media is the only source of information about scientific advances. None of us has the time to read all of the science journals out there. The sad thing is, the media shapes doctors’ perceptions of scientific advances, too. The zeitgeist is established in the papers and on the radio (NPR) and network news before doctors get a chance to digest the published work. Take for example, hormone replacement therapy. When the study published last year showing very small increases in incidence of breast cancer and heart disease in women on hormone therapy, many doctors in my community began unilaterally taking patients off their hormones in the belief that they were too dangerous to take. They did this even if their patients were taking it for legitimate reasons, such as hot flashes and osteoporosis prevention. The nuances of the study were ignored because everyone adopted the conventional wisdom as put out by the media. Science reporting benefits from the perception that because it's about science it must be accurate and true, unlike, say political reporting. But a reporters biases and misunderstandings can taint a science news story, too. And in many ways the subtleties of science are much more difficult to grasp and communicate than the subtleties of politics or other world events. But, that's why we have medical blogs now, right? posted by Sydney on 5/22/2003 08:18:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
