Readers Consider the Source, But (Health) Media Don’t Always Give It

[Guest guest]

Readers Consider the Source, But Media Don’t Always Give It

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200407081.html

July 8, 2004

 

News Articles Often Silent on Scientists’ and Groups’ Funding & Biases

 

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 Michael F.

Jacobson. “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 (GlaxoSmithKline). 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,” Jacobson 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 rs 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.