AAAS: Caution! Reporters in the room.
This afternoon we had a press briefing about a session called “The Father and the Fetus: Revisited”. The session discussed consequences for future offspring when men are exposed to nasty chemicals. Researchers almost always focus on mom, so there's not a lot of data on dad yet. The ‘revisited’ in the title refers to a previous session at a 1991 AAAS meeting. Gladys Friedler of Boston University was candid about why she organized the discussion this year: the 1991 session didn’t lead to the increase in attention and, ahem, funding that she hoped, so she’s giving it another try.
Despite that stated mission, one of the talks again focused on mom. Matthew Anway of the University of Idaho presented published work showing that when pregnant rats are given whopping high doses of a commonly used fungicide called vinclozolin, their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children are more likely to come down with certain diseases as adults. Anway doesn’t believe that vinclozolin mutates DNA -- he thinks the effects are epigenetic. (Anway’s published a ton on all of this, so just do a quick pubmed search if you want more detail.)
All very interesting, but in his brief presentation to journalists, Anway left out the ‘whopping high doses’ part. Meanwhile, some reporters clearly viewed Anway's research as a toxicity study with implications for human health. When finally asked about the dosage, Anway readily said it was much, much higher than humans would normally encounter. And, he noted, he administered the fungicide intravenously. Around the room, news-hungry journalists sagged their shoulders. One reporter chastised Anway for not making the concentration clear from the start. Anway, looking a bit frustrated, answered that he never claimed his work had environmental significance; he was only trying to understand how alterations in fetal development may affect adult disease.
It’s a common tale with a lesson for both sides. Reporters groan that the researcher was unclear; scientists groan that the reporter missed the point. In the end, both sides have to be on the watch for hidden assumptions -- including their own.
Comments
I'm a little confused. I was at the same symposia and Anway clearly stated (literally 2-3 times) during his presentation that the doses were much higher than any environmental exposure and that they had been injected. There would have been no way for any of the press to miss this detail had they been at the session. Are you describing a post-session press meet-up? If so, and members of the press were trying to report on his work without actually attending the session I don't think the bulk of the fault is with the researcher.
Posted by: Samuel Frankel | February 19, 2008 03:12 PM
Excellent point -- What I described in this post took place in a press briefing that was held after the session. But these press briefings aren't always after a session, sometimes they're before. Also, press briefings are scheduled back-to-back, and many reporters spend much of the meeting trapped in the press room, unable to attend 2-3 hour sessions. It's certainly not ideal, but there you have it.(Lucky for me, Nature encourages us to break free of the press room.)
Also, I don't want to leave the impression that Anway was in any way being reckless. I don't think that's the case at all. I just wanted to highlight how tricky these discussions can be. Reporters need to check their facts and question their own assumptions, as well.
Posted by: Heidi Ledford | February 19, 2008 04:16 PM
Thanks for the reporter's perspective, it's good to know what kind of schedule a member of the press is operating under.
Posted by: Samuel Frankel | February 19, 2008 11:26 PM