I often read of this misleading information. For an example, a publication claiming that water collected from asbestos roofing sheets can cause asbestosis or lung cancer. Another one is relating wrongly the association between inhalation of asbestos and tuberculosis. From my observation this attitude is promoted by medical doctors who have little or no experience/konwledge in occupational medicine/health. The journalists surely approach them, most especially in developing countries where training in occupational health/medicine has not received serous attention.

Bamisayo. In the developing world this scientific mis-information is more damaging than here in Britain. I have seen some frightening stories that deter people from seeking medical attention. Your point about doctors giving information to journalists when they have no real experience is also very important. The journalists tend to accept them at face value without checking if they really know what they are talking about.

I do agree with you. For an example, promotion of herbal medicines now known as alternative medicines by the media in developing countries has made the situation worse. There is often tendency to make people believe that they are promoting indigenous products and that they are more effective than orthodox drugs. Though, I believe in the efficacy of some of the herbal products if properly used. But I often tell people that most of the herbal medicines are preventive rather than curative. For instance a herbal medicine met for prevention of enlargement of the prostate is often used to treat prostate carcinoma. But what do you think can be done to reduce this misinformation and its effects?

The news media is not always the best source of health information for several key reasons:

1. News outlets rarely have staff that they can dedicate to health and science coverage, and so the level of expertise is low;

2. Topics like "a low fat diet is good for you" isn't going to get coverage because it isn't *news* (there isn't anything new or sensational);

3. Reporters are trained to avoid bias by presenting at least two sides/viewpoints to the story. Unfortunately, the "need" for another perspective can open the door for quacks. Additionally, presenting the other side can make both seem roughly equal to the audience when one explanation is clearly superior.

That has been my observation too

I think there are three factors in play here: 1) lack of time 2) lack of expertise 3) ideology or politics

1) As we know, there is a constant pressure to cut the costs of publishing papers. Therefore, in the name of saving money, there is not enough time to check all the facts and claims thoroughly.

2) Even if there was enough time, many journalists do not have the statistical and other skills to evaluate the reserach results themselves. Therefore, it all comes down to trusting people. Who do the journalists trust to present an objective opinion of a subject without a political or ideological agenda? Sometimes they choose the experts rights and sometimes not.

3) Both the journalists and the experts have some vision of "the perfect world". It is not easy to suppress these subjective views and present only the facts. The result is that the expert tells the journalist something colored with subjective views. The journalist adds his / her own subjective views when he / she cites the expert. The result is often a story with a mixture of facts and subjective views with no easy way to know what is a fact and what is an opinion.

@Kim - I think #1 can be an issue, although the internet eases the fact-checking process a bit. But you are correct that a reporter is not going to do a thorough review of the literature.

I absolutely agree with #2. We, the subject matter experts, often add to the confusion by focusing too much on statistical significance (especially in cases where effect sizes are rather small). But that might be another debate.

With #3, facts can't really be presented in a vacuum. The reporters are trying to tell "the story" of what the facts represent. We need to think about how we can help them do their job while minimizing misinformation.

Great discussion!

With regards to helping journalists properly reporting on science (and scientists properly communicating to journalists for that matter), there was some years ago now an EU-project (the messenger project) from the Social Issues Research Center and Amsterdam University on codes of conduct in science reporting, which might be a good starting point to look at again. Otherwise, haven't actually looked at it, so not sure whether it is confined to some nations, or to some types of media outlet, or whether it is a global trend, but thanks for stimulating debate on this - it may be time to look at it in a more concerted effort.

There are some projects in some countrys which focuse and monitor quality in health news, they all work with a similar set of criteria (10 and more). There ar so called Media-Doctor projects in Australia (where it all started), Canada, in US (HealtNewsReview.org), Japan, HongKong and Germany, where I work as senior editor. As far as we found unitil now (there are some very good pieces, some very bad pieces and a lot of mixed articles). Articles in local papers are worse than in national papers. You will find some research papers at PLOs Medicine and PLoS One with Gary Schwitzer (healthNewsReview) or Amanda Wilson (Media-Doctor Australia). All projects give help and tips to science and health journalists for proper reporting.