Between scientists and journalists A large gap divides the scientific and journalist communities when it comes to deciding what is
newsworthy. The ongoing nature of peer review in the scientific community makes it difficult to report interesting advances in scientific discovery. Consequently, this can create a focus on the negative aspects of medicine and science, which causes journalists to report on the mistakes of doctors or misconstrue the results of research. However, journalists are not the only ones at fault, as scientists sometimes also broadcast initial research to the media in attempts to secure future funding. For example, research done by
George Washington University in 1993 on
in-vitro fertilization was warped by the media into a horrific foray into human cloning.
Corporate influence Medical journalists also face challenges due to potential
conflicts of interest. The pharmaceutical industry has sponsored journalism contests that carry large prizes in cash or in overseas trips. The
Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) urges journalists to consider these contests carefully before entering, and most journalists avoid them. The Center for Excellence in Health Care Journalism, the supporting
501(c)(3) for AHCJ, does not accept industry funding. The
National Association of Science Writers does not accept such funding. The changing nature of news media has caused more reporters to work
freelance, outside of traditional news organizations such as major metropolitan newspapers, which may have created more ways to sidestep conflict-of-interest standards, and the rise of
blogs has allowed nontraditional providers of news that lack these standards entirely. There is also the effect of direct corporate investments in research funding. While the funding is appreciated by scientists, it can sometimes cause conflicts with journalists who see this as
profiteering. == Reviews ==