Fall 2006
Vol. 16, Number 3

Reporters often lack the knowledge or time to separate scientific fact from fringe theory—which makes it all the more important that scientists learn how to tell their story to the media. That was the message of a panel discussion on HIV science and responsible journalism at the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto co-sponsored by the HIV Medicine Association.

“It’s the responsibility of all scientists to learn to report their work to the public,” said Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD, FIDSA, comoderator for the session and HIVMA chair. Dr. Kuritzkes spoke as part of a panel of scientists, journalists, and advocates from developing and developed countries organized by HIVMA, the Forum for Collaborative Research, and the International AIDS Society. The symposium also highlighted the different challenges that journalists in South Africa face in reporting on HIV/AIDS compared to reporters in the United States and Canada.

“Is the role of the media to challenge scientific consensus?” asked Nathan Geffen, policy coordinator for the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa. According to Geffen, the answer is no.

AIDS Denialism

Geffen said most journalists do not have the expertise to critically report on peer-reviewed scientific findings. In South Africa, government leaders fuel AIDS denialism—a small group of scientists and activists challenge the basic premise that HIV causes AIDS and question the scope and origins of the epidemic. Such challenges to widely accepted science come at a great expense to the 5.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS.

Tamar Kahn, a science writer for South Africa’s Business Day, said she works daily to bring accurate information on AIDS to South Africans—which is no easy task given the reluctance of South African scientists to talk to the media and the government’s tight control over information as basic as epidemiological data on the prevalence and incidence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa.

AIDS denialism is not restricted to the developing world, however. Panelist Marilyn Chase, science writer at the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged the potential for distortion in the quest for objectivity and balance—for example, when reporters present the scientific consensus about the cause of AIDS along with a denialist view that poverty or drug use cause AIDS as if they are equally legitimate perspectives.

Chase has been reporting on AIDS since the mid-80’s, and she noted that AIDS reporting in the United States has matured, with more scrutiny being applied to the discoveries and stories that are considered newsworthy. Chase and Kim Honey, science editor of the Toronto Star, felt it was important for the media not to shy away from critical reporting on science.

HIVMA Symposium Tackles Media Coverage of HIV Science

Ensuring adequate coverage of HIV/AIDS can also be a challenge. Honey remarked that she had finally been successful in convincing the management of her paper to hire a reporter with a scientific background to assist her in processing the barrage of important and complex science stories for readers eager for science and health news.

All of the journalists on the panel noted that access to scientists was critical and offered a number of ways that scientists can help (see sidebar).

The symposium closed with a lively discussion about the role of journalists in questioning scientific consensus, as fellow panelists and members of the audience reminded Nathan Geffen that recent scientific controversies from Vioxx to falsified stem cell data suggested journalists have a role to play in challenging scientific orthodoxy.

A webcast of the event is available online.

How Scientists Can Contribute to Accurate HIV Reporting

• Be available to reporters when releasing new research findings.
• Explain a concept from the beginning and in simple terms.
• Provide copies of research presentations or other background materials to reporters to facilitate research for a story.
• Volunteer to serve on a medical advisory panel for your local newspaper or as a sounding board for a reporter trying to evaluate the importance or accuracy of newly released research findings.
• Don’t let your message get lost in the clutter. Pick out a single cogent idea. Express it in simple terms. Get your message across soon and often.