Risky business—communicating scientific findings to the public. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst

Communicating the risk of anything can be hazardous to the truth, as well as to the goal of good understanding. When a journalist and a scientist agree to discuss a research finding, the conversation usually involves some description of risk—the probability that a disease will or will not occur, based on a specific set of assumptions. For example, what is the like-lihood that a breast cancer gene will cause a tumor? What are the chances a diet high in cholesterol will lead to cardiovascular problems? These highly technical questions hinge on a number of fine points that add up to credible information in the researcher’s mind and, hopefully, a story for the reporter. However, a built-in chasm exists between the scientific worldview and the journal-istic approach to handling information. Risk to the scientist is ultimately a tool to measure and com-pare data, a statement of probability. For journalists, risk is a measurement of news value. The greater the risk of anything, the bigger the story. Is there a way of reconciling these disparate approaches? Journalists and scientists must stop viewing each other as adversaries, except in extreme circumstances such as scientific fraud. News people are not health educators, but their primary goal should be to communicate meaningful information fairly and truthfully in a way that will allow the public to make ap-propriate decisions about their health. If a few papers are sold along the way, so be it. Everybody benefits. Unfortunately, reporters and their editors are often at scal