A new study shows that red wine helps prevent the risk of heart disease. A new study suggests that drinking alcohol leads to alcoholism. A new study found that routine sex reduces the risk of prostate cancer. A new study says that routine sex increases the risk of prostate cancer. OK, there’s clearly a back-and-forth in the science and health fields. We’re constantly being told that new studies are ‘suggesting,’ ‘saying,’ ‘showing’ or ‘finding’ something, and then in many cases, we read about another new, contradictory study the next week. Readers need to be aware of what studies they can actually trust. Eventually, the public will become desensitized to headlines starting with ‘New study says …’ The New York Times has a respectable health and science section and it publishes many of the top studies. But I begin to wonder if the Times publishes every study that comes out – even if it contradicts previous studies. As it turns out, one of the Times’ science editors, Laura Chang, discussed The New York Times science department’s policy on publishing studies in a recent ‘Talk to the Newsroom’ article. ‘Medical studies contradict earlier studies so often that they’re a cliché of late-night comedy,’ Chang said in the article. But the Times works hard to keep its name reputable. Chang refers to published studies as the ‘best information currently available.’ She recognizes that because science is constantly changing, the best current information is also always changing. That’s the problem that requires health and science editors to scrutinize studies before publication. Eliene Augenbraun, the president and CEO of ScienCentral Inc., said the most important aspect to focus on when considering new studies is how the study question has changed, and what opposing results exist. ‘To (ScienCentral), the methodology sometimes changes so much that that is what we focus on,’ Augenbraun said. This is a good strategy because it focuses on more than just new results, which can be frustrating for readers, myself included. Being able to read and learn about the ways in which science changes might make it easier for the public to understand why studies can conflict. Chang said the Times first decides whether the study’s findings are significant, then it looks at the quality of research. Are the authors credible? Were there many participants? Were the results ‘meaningful’ to the general public? These are important issues the Times considers before publishing a study, Chang said. My concern is that the media publishes studies too often for fear of being out-published by competition, especially right now when news outlets need readers. Chang said that breaking news in the science field doesn’t usually happen because science is a step-by-step process that usually takes time to produce results. But Chang confirms my fear about competition among news outlets.The increased number of health and science articles appearing on the front page is because of ‘competition among scientists and their employers or sponsors to publish results as quickly as possible, and sometimes frankly, to present data in a way that makes an incremental development appear to be a breakthrough,’ Chang said. The trustworthy method the Times uses to sift through myriad studies seems negated when it also publishes findings to beat the competition. Good journalists will find a way to present significant health and science findings without compromising their credibility.

Heather Mayer is a senior newspaper journalism major with Spanish and nutrition minors. She is the health columnist. She wishes the best of luck to the Class of 2009. She can be reached at [email protected].