How to do your job

Does science journalism need its own version of the Hippocratic oath, the thing that doctors don't actually sign? Some people think so.

An early entrant on the scene came from the Royal Society which produced a set of Guidance for editors. Following this effort, he Social Issues Research Centre, in partnership with the Royal Society and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, has produced a "Code of Practice" of Guidelines on Science and Health Communication.

Full details at
Royal SocietySocial Issues Research Centre

No less a body than the Press Complaints Commission has endorsed this effort.

The magazine Science and Public Affairs, from the British Association for the Advancement of Science, published a simplified check list from the code or practice in its issue of December 2001:

Credibility of sources

• Have the findings been published in a peer reviewed
  journal?
• Do the researchers have an established track record in the field and are they based at a reputable institution or organisation?

Procedures and methods

• Were the research methods appropriate?
• What do other professionals in the field think of the methods?

Findings and conclusions

• Is this really a ‘breakthrough’?

The significance of findings

• Are the findings preliminary or inconclusive?
• Do the findings differ markedly from previous studies?
• Do these findings appear to contradict mainstream scientific opinion?
• Are these findings based on small or unrepresentative samples?

Communicating risk

• Has the risk been expressed in absolute as well as relative terms?
• Can the risk be compared with anything else?
• Have the researchers been asked ‘how safe is it’ instead of ‘is it safe’?

Anticipating the impact

• Will the report cause undue anxiety or optimism among audiences or readers?
• Have important caveats been prominently included?