| |
Autumn 2007
|
Stempra newsletter
EVENT REPORT: From mobile phones to Polonium-210 - dealing with risk and the media Mike Clark, spokesperson from the Radiation Protection Division of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), spoke at a Stempra event on radiation and risk and the media in May. Mike spent many years as scientist at the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) working in an ionising radiation physics laboratory. As a scientist, he always felt that if you can't explain what you do to a member of your family then you shouldn't be doing it - using public money means that you should be able to communicate with those paying your wages. He began to work in public engagement after the Chernobyl accident and was asked to take a more formal communications role in 1997. He is now science spokesperson for the Radiation Protection Division at the HPA. In his current role Mike engages with the public and the media on some of the most controversial areas in science, from mobile phone masts, Wi-Fi and nuclear power, to the high-profile poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium-210. He feels that in communicating risks to human health there are common themes whether you are talking about mobile phones, chemicals or the risk of ionising radiation. New technologies have always raised public health concerns. For example, when Visual Display Units (VDUs) first appeared in offices there were concerns that they caused miscarriage, catarrhs, epilepsy, nose bleeds and headaches, none of which turned out to be true. However, there is actually there is a risk of having VDUs on your desk - getting repetitive strain injury. So there is a risk to health, but not the one that people had anecdotally reported. This illustrates one of the major problems with communicating risks in a post-BSE era - the custodians of public health are afraid of saying anything is safe for fear that they will be proved wrong in the future. It is true that you can never say something is absolutely safe. Even water, essential for life, can be dangerous in some circumstances - everything has its hazards. However, what we can do is make the public aware of the facts we have available. Advice on health should always be evidence-based, although this can be difficult with new technologies where there may not be a lot of data. Where we don't know something about a new technology or if there is uncertainty, it is important that we should be transparent and say we don't know. There is a hierarchy in the importance of different types of scientific evidence when suggesting something might cause a health risk. The best type of evidence is good epidemiological data which is most likely to establish cause and affect. The next best type of evidence is to show whether the factor has an effect on animals. Biological effects - experiments that use cells in a Petri dish - are often unreliable. The worst type of evidence is the anecdote - whilst not something to be ignored, is obviously very subjective. For scientists to claim that something causes a negative health impact, all of these types of evidence must be in place. The media is the absolute opposite to science - the nature of the media means that the anecdote is the most compelling, whether it be the woman with breast cancer, the child with leukaemia or the person who has symptoms from exposure to Wi-Fi. There is no way that we can change this situation, we live in a society where we learn by storytelling and the anecdote is an important way of getting information. Scientists should be aware of this, and should use anecdotes of their own to illustrate what they are saying. It is also important to be prepared for direct questions such as 'Would you live near an incinerator/mobile phone mast/have Wi-Fi in your home?' My feeling is that scientists and spokespeople should be prepared to answer these questions, as this can be the clincher on how the public feels on the issues. The public often gets information about public health issues from a range of sources other than science, and this includes lobby groups and NGOs. In all areas we need to stand back and look at the advice given by these groups, who sometimes use exaggerated or carefully selected science to make their point. This is all well and good as long as the public is aware that this is what is happening, and it is part of the role of scientists and science spokespeople to make this clear. For example, anti-nuclear power campaigners often highlight the clusters of leukaemia around nuclear power stations. Taken at face value this can sound worrying to the public. However, this can be put into context - we know that most cancers are seen in clusters. The claims that nuclear power stations cause cancer clusters can be disproved by good epidemiology, but the problem with epidemiology is that it can be difficult for the public to understand. With lobby groups, it is best to establish a dialogue, though don't think that you will change a dedicated campaigner's mind on an issue with rational scientific facts. The best way to work with pressure groups is to debate with them in public. Giving the best evidence available in a debate gives the public the chance to make up their own mind on the issue. Public health controversies that involve scientific uncertainty can be easily influenced by maverick scientists - one of the most well known examples is the work of Andrew Wakefield and MMR vaccine. Time and time again we have seen that it is best to counter claims from mavericks with scientific fact and that trying to censor maverick views is almost always counterproductive. In summary, it is important to work with the media and the public to explain what evidence we have around public health concerns. Explaining what evidence is available but also being open about the gaps in our knowledge will inspire public trust. The public will hear about health issues from a wide range of sources, so it is really important that they also hear about the real evidence from the scientific community. Dr Claire Bithell | |