LETTERS

It's no surprise that nasw-pr people feel once again disfranchised by their exclusion from NASW Awards ("On the Lists" by Bob Finn, SW, Winter 2000-2001). I don't think they should.

Twenty years ago, I served on the NASW board representing the PR group before the associate membership distinction was abolished. This issue about awards had surfaced during the several years I was on the board. But the conclusion of what to do was the same each time.

Journalists and PR people are not the same. They serve different institutions, functions, and constituencies. They may think alike in spirit, but in terms of their institutional obligations, they do not or cannot.

Journalists deal mainly in facts and ideas as do their PR colleagues. But here the similarity ends, because what journalists write and what PR people are promoting are two different things. A PR person distributes a press release about an exciting new device or medical treatment. That's straightforward. It brings a new discovery to the attention of the press and the public, making sure the facts are accurate and facilitating access of reporters to the researchers involved.

But journalists do not stop there. They must ask: Is this claim made about the new treatment justified? What are the qualifications of the researchers? Was the study based on unbiased evidence and is the number of human subjects representative? Today, reporters must also ask: Are you connected to or do you own stock in the company that makes the device?

All too often reporters will seek opinions of scientists unrelated to the study. This is important because in science and medicine competition for grants and public recognition move at a frenetic pace. With too many academic researchers involved in industrial alliances, and hospitals trying to attract patients in order to survive in the HMO environment, it is hard to find the unbiased, cautious scientist who says, "I don't know," or "Our study is inconclusive" or "We need to gather more data before we say that the treatment works for sure." What reporters learn from unbiased sources will shape the tone and importance of how the story plays out.

There is another difference. Journalists must be vigilant in finding out about things PR people or their institutions fail to report. As the late Victor Cohn related in his excellent book News and Numbers, it was not the Environmental Protection Agency, but independent journalistic investigation, that opened up the Love Canal story. The extensive press coverage led to congressional scrutiny, investigations, and a national toxic-waste disposal program.

That is not to say PR people will not risk their jobs to report on negative events involving their bosses and institutions. Robert Beyers, Stanford's legendary news director from 1962 to 1990, did not hesitate to let the world know that a group of Mexican migrant workers and their children in a nearby ranch leased by Stanford to a vegetable grower, were underpaid and lived in substandard, overcrowded housing without toilets and other essential amenities. Bob also exposed the unsafe features of a new $12-million toxic-waste disposal plant as university officials were making plans for a grand opening. Bob's initiative helped him get a handle on these stories before the press got wind of them. And it forced administrators to swift action to address these problems and save themselves from an even greater embarrassment.

It may be possible to design an NASW award recognizing PR people for exceptional dedication to the truth. But how many of us would truly qualify?

So I think we should bury the awards subject for good. Our PR efforts already receive more than appropriate recognition from our professional societies. NASW will benefit more if journalists and PR people can find better ways to capitalize on their differences.

Spyros Andreopoulos, Director Emeritus
Office of News and Public Affairs
Stanford University Medical Center

I recently had an interesting discussion with a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine. Some may have noticed a story in the Feb. 22, 2001 issue on how genetics influence how a person metabolizes alcohol. I and many others wrote about this work last fall when the grad student involved held a press conference at the American Society of Human Genetics. That seems like a clear violation of the Ingelfinger rule but the editor danced around agreeing with me. He said NEJM hasn't changed its policies but they do occasionally publish articles that have gotten extensive media attention, even ones in which scientists have sought publicity through a press conference. Just another example of how arbitrary journal policies are.

John Travis
Science News

ScienceWriters welcomes letters to the editor. A letter must include a daytime phone number and e-mail address. Letters may be edited. Letters submitted may be used in print or in digital form by NASW. Send to Editor, ScienceWriters, P. O. Box 1725 Solana Beach, CA92075, fax 858-793-1144, or e-mail lfriedmann@nasw.org.

#