Biomedical research attracts ample attention from the media. Such interest has its advantages. Explaining research results publicly can make people aware of recent developments derived from science. It may also enable scientists and their institutions to justify the spending of public and private funds. Favourable reporting can speed up fundraising and, if sustained, give research institutions a reputation for solidity and expertise.

At the same time, there is a risk that information shared via the media may be too simplistic or too positive. Briefly communicating complex scientific messages to the general public is not easy and journalists prefer spectacular results. This may, for example, lead people to become overly optimistic about treatment possibilities, especially patients desperately hoping for an effective therapy. In addition, the influence of third parties may compromise the full and unbiased sharing of scientific information.

Influence of third parties

Researchers, too, might be tempted to overstate their findings and the implications of these findings. Spectacular results get much more media attention, which can be a significant asset when applying for new grants, promotion or tenure. Furthermore, having some ‘minutes of fame’ can be a nice, ego-boosting experience and might substantially elevate your standing among family members, friends or colleagues.

Social media have a special role among media, as they offer opportunities to inform people in a more direct manner. This may be helpful for finding suitable participants for clinical studies, communicating interesting developments or stimulating a constructive scholarly debate. However, it also allows fake or biased information to spread widely and rapidly. News sites and blogs do not always respect the principles of fair journalism. On social media, where the dividing line between news and opinion is thin, the integrity of a researcher or institution can all too easily be called into question.

Guidelines to avoid publicity pitfalls

Researchers should carefully consider their contribution to public statements before these are released. The scientific independence of both the researcher and the institution can be compromised by:

  • overly positive presentation of the study results;
  • selective presentation of results;
  • stretching the implications of the results beyond the scope of the study.

The following guidelines will help researchers to avoid publicity pitfalls. Special attention is paid to publicity in which industry plays a role.

Support

Situations relating to integrity and conflict of interest differ widely, as do the kinds of media. The Communication department of Amsterdam UMC can provide support if further questions about publicity arise. The professionals from this department can not only recommend whether and when a media interview or presentation is likely to be beneficial, but also advise researchers on what to do, what not to do, and how to get their message across most effectively.

For location AMC, the Communication department can be contacted by email or telephone (020–566 2421 during office hours and 020–566 9111 outside office hours through the switchboard). For location VUmc, the Communication department can be contacted by email or telephone (020–444 3444 during office hours or 020–444 4444 outside office hours through the switchboard).

For further information, the following guidelines (in Dutch) can be consulted: