Readers Consider the Source, but Media Don't Always Give It

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ilena and Caroline!

=======================================

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200407081_print.html

Center for Science in the Public Interest

For Immediate Release: July 8, 2004

Readers Consider the Source, but Media Don't Always

Give It

News Articles Often Silent on Scientists’ and Groups’

Funding & Biases

WASHINGTON--How a reporter describes an expert source

determines how much credibility a reader gives to the

expert’s assertion, according to a new national survey

released today by the Center for Science in the Public

Interest (CSPI). Most respondents say that news media

should disclose whether information in their articles

comes from scientists or organizations who receive

grants or funding from corporations.

According to the poll, 59 percent had confidence in a

hypothetical statement asserting a drug is safe when

the statement was attributed to a " Harvard professor

whose research is government supported. " When the

statement was simply attributed to " a Harvard

professor, " 48 percent had confidence. 41 percent had

confidence in the statement when it was attributed to

a " Harvard professor whose research is supported by

drug companies. " Only 24 percent of those surveyed had

confidence when the statement was attributed to a

" Harvard professor who owns stock in drug companies. "

" These findings are particularly salient at a time

when so many researchers are funded by the very

companies whose products they are studying or

commenting on, " said CSPI executive director

F. son. " Regrettably, the news media do an uneven

job of disclosing potentially biasing sources of

funding when quoting scientific researchers or

reporting their findings. Readers, therefore, can’t

put various reports about medicine or health into

context. "

As an example, CSPI points to media citations of Dr.

Graham Emslie, a professor of psychiatry at the

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center who

has received research funding and consulting fees from

numerous drug companies, including those that make

antidepressants such as Prozac (made by Eli Lilly) and

Paxil (GlaxoKline). Emslie is widely quoted

supporting the use of those drugs in young people.

While The Washington Post reliably discloses Emslie’s

financial ties to drug makers or notes that his

research is conducted on their behalf, other media

outlets often identify Emslie only as a professor,

researcher, or study author, and less frequently

disclose his ties to the drug makers whose products he

studies.

The CSPI survey also tested respondents’ confidence in

a statement from a hypothetical organization called

the National Committee on Science indicating that " the

pesticide is safe. " When that group was identified as

a " nonprofit group that consists of 400 scientists and

doctors, " 71 percent of those surveyed were very or

somewhat confident in the statement. 58 percent had

confidence when the group was identified just as " a

nonprofit group, " and 53 percent had confidence in the

statement when the group was identified as a

" nonprofit group that is largely funded by the

government. " When the group was identified as " largely

funded by chemical and other companies, " only 33

percent were confident in the statement about the

pesticide.

According to CSPI, news accounts often fail to

identify the funding sources of ostensibly independent

nonprofit organizations that are quoted on health and

medical issues. For instance, a real group called the

American Council on Science and Health is largely

funded by chemical, food, and agribusiness companies

and is widely quoted downplaying various risks to

public health or discrediting studies indicating risks

to health. In the pages of The New York Times it is

sometimes blandly cited as a " science advocacy group, "

a " private health education group, " or a " group that

describes itself as 400 doctors and scientists who

release position statements on science and the

environment. " Elsewhere, the Times more helpfully has

described the group as a " consumer foundation in

Manhattan that is in part financed by industry, " or as

a group that is " financed in part by the food

industry. "

" If a reporter is going to quote a group like the

American Council on Science and Health, the Center for

Consumer Freedom, or other nonprofit groups funded by

corporations, that reporter should be sure to identify

the corporations that fund it, " son said. " If a

group refuses to disclose its corporate funding,

journalists should say so. "

" The best journalism occurs when the media give

complete disclosures about their sources and their

financial arrangements, " said Trudy Lieberman,

president of the Association of Health Care

Journalists. " Anything less cheats the readers and

viewers. "

The survey of 1,000 randomly selected adults was

conducted by TNS Express Omnibus, from May 26 to May

30, 2004. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus

3.2 percent.

How the news media and medical journals report

financial conflicts of interest among quoted experts

and study authors is among the topics to be addressed

at a July 12 conference organized by CSPI’s Integrity

in Science Project.

For the record, the Center for Science in the Public

Interest is a nonprofit organization that advocates

for improved nutrition, food-safety, and pro-health

alcohol policies. It is largely funded by some 850,000

subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter, and

it receives some foundation support as well. CSPI

discloses its foundation donors on its web site. CSPI

takes no funding from corporations and no government

grants.

For more information, contact:

Center for Science in the Public Interest

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20009

phone 202.332.9110

fax 202.265.4954