Linee guida per la diffusione delle informazioni scientifiche sull’alimentazione (Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety and Health J. National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, Num. 3; 194-99)
Responsabili delle pubblicazioni scientifiche
La sua politica di filtro rappresenta un vantaggio per il pubblico?
Ha considerato gli effetti che i risultati delle ricerche possono produrre sui consumatori?
I suoi metodi di presentazione della pubblicazione consentono agli scienziati di illustrare i risultati degli abstract ai mezzi di informazione?
Giornalisti
Il suo articolo è, per quanto possibile, accurato e obiettivo?
È sicuro di non aver influenzato in alcun modo l’opinione pubblica?
Il suo articolo fornisce consigli utili ai consumatori?
Il suo articolo ha fondamenti scientifici?
Industriali, consumatori e altri gruppi di interesse
Le informazioni da lei fornite ai mezzi di informazione sono precise e verificate?
Si attiene a standard etici nel fornire informazioni in materia di salute e alimentazione?
………………………………
Communication Guidelines for Scientists
-Have you provided essential background information about the study in your written findings, or to journalists or others requesting it, in a language that can be understood?
-Have you explained all details of the study including purpose, hypothesis, type and number of subjects, research design, methods of data collection and analysis, and the primary findings?
-Are you reporting study findings consistent with the original purpose of the data collection?
-Were appropriate scientific methods of inquiry used? Did you disclose any study shortcomings or limitations, including methods of data collection? Were objective health measurements used to help verify self-reports?
-Was the study conducted in animals or humans? Are limitations of animal models noted in terms of their applicability to humans?
-Have you waited to report the results until the study has been independently peer-reviewed? If not, did you disclose to the media that the findings are preliminary and have not yet been peer-reviewed?
-Have you clarified dietary risks and benefits?
-Did you explain the dosage of a substance or amount of food or ingredient that was linked to the health outcome? Is this amount reasonably consumed by the average individual?
-What was the original risk of developing the disease? Have you expressed the new level of risk in terms of both absolute and relative risk?
-Have you met the needs of the media?
-Are you available for media interviews the day before/after the release? Do you make every attempt to respond to media inquiries in a timely fashion?
-Does the news release prepared for the study communicate the primary findings faithfully and without exaggeration? Have you reviewed and approved the final version of your institution’s news release?
——————————————————————————–
Communication Guidelines for Journal Editors
-Does your embargo policy enhance public communication?
-Do you make embargoed copies of the journal available to all journalists who agree to respect the embargo, not just a select group of reporters?
-Do you notify scientists whose studies will likely receive press attention when the embargoed issue is being made available?
-Do you provide the relevant articles from the embargoed journal to study authors so they can preview other related work in that issue, helping them respond to questions?
-Do you encourage responsible media reporting on study findings?
-If you issue a news release on an article in your journal, is it faithful to the underlying research? Does it provide adequate background information?
-Have you considered the effect of the study findings on consumers?
-Have you considered what might be the effect of the study finding on the general public?
-Does the study warrant an accompanying editorial to help put the findings into context? If so, is the editorial content included in the news release?
-Does your submission policy permit scientists to clarify results of abstract presentations with the media?
-Does your submission policy make it clear that scientists presenting abstracts should submit the complete report for peer review? -Have you stressed they should not distribute copies of the complete report of the study, or figures or tables from that study, to the media before publication in a peer-reviewed journal?
——————————————————————————–
Communication Guidelines for Journalists
-Is your story accurate and balanced?
-Have you established the credibility of your primary source?
-Have you asked other reputable scientists and other third-party health sources if they believe the study is reliable and significant? Have these scientists reviewed the study?
-Do the third-party sources you are quoting represent mainstream scientific thinking on the issue involved? If not, have you made it clear that such opinions or commentary differ from most scientific perspectives on this topic? If such opposing viewpoints are expressed by only one or two individuals, does the amount of coverage given reflect that these are clearly minority opinions?
-Have you received and reviewed a copy of the study publication—not simply reviewed abstracts, news releases, wire reports, or other secondary sources of information?
-After reviewing the study results and limitations, have you concluded it still warrants coverage? Have you objectively considered the possibility of not covering the study?
-Are words used to describe the findings appropriate for the type of investigation? Cause and effect can only be shown directly in studies in which the intervention is the only variable modified between the experimental and control group.
-Is the tone of the news report appropriate? Do you avoid using words that overstate the findings, e.g., “may” does not mean “will” and “some” people does not mean “all” or “most” people?
-Are the headlines, photo images, and graphics consistent with the findings and content of your article?
Have you applied a healthy skepticism in your reporting?
-In talking to sources and reading news releases, have you separated fact versus emotion or commentary?
-Do the study findings seem plausible?
-Have you used any hyped or “loaded” terms in the headline or body of a report to attract public attention, e.g., “scientific breakthrough” or “medical miracle”? Does the report indirectly suggest that a pill, treatment, or other approach is a “silver bullet”?
-Have you applied the same critical standards to all sources of information—from scientists, to public relations/press offices, to journals, to industry, to consumer and special interest groups? What does the information source have to gain if its point of view is presented?
-Have you considered a range of conflict-of-interest possibilities beyond dollars?
-Does your story provide practical consumer advice?
-Have you translated the findings into everyday consumer advice? For example, if a study reports on the effects of a specific nutrient, have you considered identifying the foods in which it is most commonly found?
-How do action steps relate to the larger context of existing dietary guidance (e.g., Dietary Guidelines for Americans, USDA Food Guide Pyramid, importance of balance, variety, and moderation)?
-Have you provided credible national, state, or local resources where consumers can obtain more information or assistance on the diet and health topic—especially if the findings present an immediate threat to public health and safety (such as, foodborne or waterborne illness outbreak), e.g., brochures, toll-free hotlines, online resources?
-Is your reporting grounded in basic understanding of scientific principles?
-Are you aware of the difference between evidence and opinion? If not, have you consulted knowledgeable sources?
-Are you familiar with the scientific method of inquiry and various terms such as hypothesis testing, control groups, randomization, double-blind study, etc.? Do you understand and communicate that science is evolutionary, not revolutionary in nature?
Are you familiar with different types of studies, why they are used, and the limitations of each?
Do you stay current on diet and health recommendations, so as to help identify the true significance of new findings?
Il Testo completo: Ific.org
