In July 2013, a 21-year-old man died of leukaemia in the Spanish city of Valencia. Mario chose to dismiss his doctors advice, turned to a so-called expert in natural and orthomolecular medicine and abandoned chemotherapy, choosing instead to fight his illness with alternative medicine. Mario was not, as some might conclude, an uneducated young man who did not know better. He was studying to become a physicist, but even this background did not prevent his believing a charlatans claims. Tragedies like this beg the question: What can journalism do to better encourage trust in scientific evidence? The4th European Conference for Science Journalistsheld on 26 to 30 June 2017 aimed to answer such questions in a series of sessions that examine the roles of policymakers, citizens, scientists, and science journalists inmaking scientific facts great again.

In a world where alternative facts, conspiracy theories, and science denialism are becoming mainstream at an alarming rate, dubious medical theories are flourishing.Toril Aalberg, lead author of the reportPopulist political communications in Europe, sees this as part of the anti-elitism that is typical of populist communication. One that sees science, and scientists, as part of the immoral elite who work against the interest of good people, adds Aalberg.

In response to Marios death,Ciudadanos, a relatively new political party, brought a proposal before Parliament demanding that health professionals should be obliged to communicate to the relevant legal authorities the practices carried out by professionals, qualified or not, who, far from the scientific evidence, could cause real prejudice to the direct health of their patients.

Not all political groups subscribe to this line of argument, however, and politicians are not above making mistakes. The Spanish former minister of health,Ana Mato, speaking at a pharmaceutical industry forum, stated that medicines for mild conditions could be replaced by natural products. Similarly, in an interview with the Spanish newspaperEl Pais,Beln Crespo, director of theSpanish Agency of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices, said that Homeopathic medicines are just like every other medicine, equating these concoctions with proven effective drugs.

In Spain, many politicians are too scared of public opinion to speak out against alternative medicine, according toElena Campos, president of theAssociation to Protect the Sick from Pseudoscientific Therapies(APETP), a campaign group founded by Marios father only two weeks after his sons death. This is completely irresponsible, says Campos in a statement toEl Pas. It means that when concerns are raised, they often go unanswered.

Unbiased reporting

The solution to this lies in accurate, responsible journalism that reports facts and allows the public to make up their minds about the effectiveness of alternative therapies. Journalism has a key role in providing fact-checking, explainsDame Anne Glover, former chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission.

To form an opinion about the relative merits of alternative and mainstream medicine, policymakers and the public need access to credible unbiased reporting of what the best evidence is, says Glover. If journalists stick to these principles, their work can help to catalyse public opinion against pseudoscience, and this can change politicians minds.

MEPs are very receptive to comments, and youd be surprised how much impact a question from just one voter can have, saysSofie Vanthournout, Director of the Brussels-based campaign groupSense about Science EU. In 2011, the group launched theAsk for Evidence campaign, encouraging citizens to do just that. The group supports actions that make people in power accountable for their claims.

Besides advising on how to contact policymakers, Sense about Science EU also explains how to make sense of the available evidence. This way, citizens are equipped to recognise inconsistencies, and they are less easily led by the improper use of available data.

Even when good studies are used to justify certain decisions, Vanthournout explains that many claims do not hold up. Cherry picking (choosing only a handful of data to suit an agenda) is common, she observed. As is the use of studies which had no quality control, such as peer review, and are of very low scientific quality. I also see a lot of examples of studies being provided to prove a point, which are actually very high quality but after a closer look, you see that they dont support the claim at all, she says.

In Brussels, the EU has established theScientific Advice Mechanismto help policymakers see through the claims of pseudoscience. In my view it is important to actually provide the evidence, tell policymakers what is known and what is not known, saysProfessor Pearl Dykstra, a member of the central panel of scientists that provide the recommendations. We need to trigger people to ask questions.

Joana Branco

Reprinted with the kind permission from the European Conference for Science Journalists 2017 (ECSJ2017) held in Copenhagen between 26 and 30 June 2017.

Image credit:Matt Brineyonunsplash

times.

Go here to see the original:

Unbiased reporting can help call time on pseudoscience - EuroScientist