Are embargo breaks bad for science?

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)’s very public ticking off of Jonathan Leake for breaking an embargo has prompted an angry reaction from some journalists; they have cleared Leake of breaking an embargo, because he had no access to embargoed material, and some have even called for ESHRE to apologise for their public rebuke. So once again the thorny issue of embargoes has raised its head, reminding us that journalists and science press officers are fundamentally different animals.

Now I like Jonathan Leake a lot, and have worked with him on many good science stories over the years, but he is a serial embargo breaker and I mean serial. Countless press officers could probably confirm Leake’s claim that he did not take this story from embargoed material because he no longer has access to any! Every scientific journal I know and many scientific bodies, including the SMC, have long since removed Leake from their press lists – as had ESHRE. The fact that he therefore operates outside the embargo system means that he is free to break embargoes wherever he chooses – a state of affairs he exploits to full effect; and one that is perhaps not quite as brave and intrepid as it first appears. Yes, we would all like to see more investigative journalism, with less reliance on press releases and PR, but do we really want it to look like this?

As with every high profile embargo break, and the debate that follows, it is complicated. And this case is no different. But whatever the truth about exactly how it came about, if Leake knew this story was under embargo and ran it anyway then in my book that qualifies as an embargo break! I might even speculate further and suggest it was possibly because it was under embargo that he ran it. The story made a good front page splash for two reasons: firstly, because it’s a great story, but secondly because it meant the Sunday Times beat their competitors to it. Leake is a science reporter of long standing who knows the rules of scientific conferences, and he probably knew that his colleagues at the Times and all those science reporters sent to Rome by their papers would be waiting for that embargo to lift.

I am not saying that there are never any exonerating circumstances for embargo breaks, and the SMC considers its response on a case by case basis. We decided not to act against the science reporters on the Times last year when their Scottish editor and a freelancer ran a front page splash on a vitamin D study due to be launched at the SMC the next day. Our enquiries revealed that one of the authors had been in close contact with the Scottish editor for some months and had long promised him an exclusive when the study made it into a journal. However, we did act against a former Telegraph health editor who splashed a hotly awaited Nuffield report on premature babies before our embargoed briefing - 24 hours before the embargo was due to lift. On this occasion the journalist in question had registered for the embargoed briefing but was allegedly handed an unembargoed report by a contact the night before. Despite fierce protests from her Telegraph colleagues, the SMC banned the offending journalist for three months. We then made it clear to all reporters using the SMC that if they made the decision to run a story they clearly knew to be embargoed in advance of an SMC briefing – thus ruining a briefing that may have been months in the making and depriving the entire media of a important public health story – we would have no choice but to remove them from our lists. The message is simple: run the splash but pay the price!

And here’s the thing – I don’t want to start bleating about the importance of the work done by the SMC, and god forbid I should even suggest that journalists have responsibilities to the public, but I would ask commentators to at least reflect about the consequences of embargo breaks on individual science stories. The SMC’s job is to work with scientists to help them ensure their science is covered in the most accurate and evidence-based way by the news media. In the Telegraph case, the scientists who had spent a year producing a thoughtful and sensitive report addressing whether babies under 24 weeks should be left to die suddenly found themselves catapulted onto the front pages and into the broadcast media before having had any chance to explain their findings to the whole of the news media in a considered way. The Telegraph got their splash ahead of the others at the expense of the public and policy makers getting access to the nuanced findings of this important report. Last week the SMC in fact ran a press briefing for journalists registered for ESHRE, where three leading fertility experts urged caution and care with the reporting of the ovarian reserves story. None of those caveats or caution showed up in Leake’s article or the subsequent broadcast and comment pieces that followed his report. In other words, embargo breaks have a huge effect on a story – on where it appears and how it appears. And it's particularly serious when this happens with research that has important implications for patients that need to be properly explained and put into context.

There are also broader issues here. What does it mean for the embargo system as a whole if one science reporter operates not just outside it but is completely immune to it? I know of several science reporters who are now being encouraged to break embargoes by their editors for fear of regularly losing out to the Sunday Times. I am all for replacing the embargo system with something better – whatever that might be – but there is a difference between a planned revolution and chaotic system collapse, something that will surely happen soon if no Monday paper can rely on an embargo being held.

It has also raised the issue of original journalism and ‘hunting for stories’, but surely the Sunday Times splash is not that? Running a story the rest of the media have access to, and simply doing it 24 hours before anyone else, is about as far away from original reporting as I can imagine. When I set up and ran the debate on embargoes at the World Conference of Science Journalists last June I actually wanted to side with the impassioned anti-embargo duo of Richard Horton and Vincent Kiernan who gave us a glorious idealistic vision of science reporting, freed from the shackles of the ‘diary’ story and free to roam the laboratories of the world in search of stories. I also think many science reporters share that dream, but turning it into a reality is easier said than done, as demonstrated by Richard Horton himself who continues to edit a journal whose embargoes are vigorously enforced!

The irony here is that Jonathan Leake does have the time to seek these stories out. I know embargoes often don’t work for Sunday newspapers – and that must be incredibly frustrating – but that disadvantage is surely outweighed by the luxury of time to find stories? Indeed Leake does sometimes do it; he attends scientific conferences like AAAS and manages to track down stories not being covered by the dailies. He does find good stories – but he also grabs a lot of low-hanging fruit and this should not be applauded.

Emma Mason and Mary Rice, the ESHRE press officers being chastised for their rebuke of Leake, are two of the best, most experienced science press officers I know, and have transformed journalists’ experience of ESHRE's conference into a well managed operation. Perhaps there are lessons learned about how information and abstracts from a conference are distributed – but even more likely than this the experience will make ESHRE and others look for even stronger methods to protect their embargoes.

I am sure before long we will be having this debate again – the embargo, as we would all freely admit, is not a perfect system. But many journalists, much as they may dislike it, would also admit that it is incredibly helpful given the time pressures they are under. And until we can come up with something better, it’s all we’ve got.

Embargoes, helping or hindering good science journalism?

There has been much discussion in various fora about David Whitehouse's provocative tirade against the embargo system. Many of the reactions defending the embargo system I agree with, but there were a couple of points I wanted to add to what's already been said.

Firstly I would like to point out that the discussion about whether embargoes protect or prevent good science journalism slightly misses the point about embargoes - that they are the property of science press officers. Journalists can engage in all the discussion they like about the embargo system, but the truth is that it is likely to continue because embargoes are one way that science press officers can have some control over the stories we give to the media. If we want the story to be seen or heard by policy makers we can slap on a midnight embargo to make sure MPs wake up to it on BBC Radio 4's Today programme and in the morning papers. If it's a story that we would prefer to reach the general public, we can embargo it to get on the main BBC and ITN TV news. The embargo is something that press officers use to help us do our jobs – to get the best possible coverage for our institutions' work.

And let's face it guys, the embargo is about the only thing we do have control over. Even with the best media management in the business we have no control over what journalists do with our stories. There was a salutary reminder of this at the Science Media Centre (SMC) this week. Having successfully persuaded the Home Office to get on the front foot by issuing their annual animal research statistics at an SMC media briefing (rather than the old policy of sticking the data on their website and waiting for the anti-animal-research groups to give the story to their favourite journalists), we woke up with horror to see that half the press led with Ed Balls' (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families) father attacking the rise in animal research. Not that I was counting or anything, but our mates at The Guardian gave the previously unheard-of Prof Balls the headline, lead paragraph and six paragraphs to attack the rise in animal research compared with only three for the contents of the briefing itself. But hey, that happens all the time, and not just in science – read any spin-doctor's diary.

Of course that doesn't mean that we should abuse the embargo system and I accept that there has to be a good reason to embargo a story as well as some rationale for the timing. When the SMC embargoed a media briefing on clinical trials after the Parexel disaster for the Sunday papers, we were rightly ridiculed by the dailies for slapping an artificial embargo on an ongoing public health story. But in most other cases the objections from journalists tend to relate to whether or not the embargo time suits them. I love the Today programme dearly but when producers occasionally do that "do you know who we are" thing I now take a perverse pleasure in telling them that I do indeed know who they are but that this time we're trying to reach 8 year olds so the embargo is geared around Newsround! As I have said before in this blog, no matter how much we go out drinking with journalists, there will come a time where the fact that they are journalists and we are press officers will put us at loggerheads – and in my experience that tension almost always comes to light over embargoes.

My only other reaction to David Whitehouse's polemic is to ridicule the notion that the embargo system is somehow preventing hoards of intrepid investigative science journalists from digging out original stories. Quite frankly I find that ludicrous. Science stories do not only appear in embargoed journals or press briefings. There are beautiful science stories blooming in every scientific institution in the country just waiting for some science reporter to pluck. After spending a day with scientists at IGER (the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research) in Aberystwyth two years ago, I told at least 10 journalists that they should pay a visit because there were some great stories to be found. Not one took me up on the idea, but when I persuaded an IGER scientist to come to London to sit on our panel on "farming and climate change" last week, every journalist went crazy over the wonderful story of modifying grass to reduce the methane being belched into the atmosphere by cows. It wasn't the embargo system that had prevented journalists getting this story, it was the long slow train line to Aberystwyth. And if embargoes do thwart journalists from getting their own science stories, how come so many of our science journalists do just that? How come Mark Henderson has broken so many of the cutting edge fertility stories that have graced the front pages of The Times? How come Rachael Buchanan and Fergus Walsh have got so many exclusives on the BBC 10 O'clock news? Did they break any embargoes? No, they pursued stories and kept in touch with scientists.

It is kind of Whitehouse to argue that the embargo system discriminates against Sunday papers, but the best Sunday journalists are not complaining. Robin McKie, science editor of the Observer, has been taking pot-luck on finding a story at the institutions he visits almost every Tuesday and Wednesday. On trips organised by press officers like Sheila Anderson at NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), he meets scientists, takes time to discuss their research and almost always finds his story for that Sunday's paper. Far from whinging about being cruelly denied stories from the journals, McKie tells me he feels liberated from the pressures that his colleagues on the dailies face and says it's a privilege to have the time and space to meet amazing scientists and dig out stories that no one else has. Likewise his colleague on the health side, Jo Revill, has won more awards for her journalism that we've had hot dinners – and in five years I've never heard her complain about being excluded from the embargo system.

So I'm afraid I find little to agree with in Whitehouse's article and indeed his starting point – that the embargo system produces shoddy journalism –simply does not ring true.

I want to give the last word to my friend Geoff Watts, a long serving BBC health and science reporter, whose witty reaction to David Whitehouse's article neatly sums the majority view; that embargoing journal stories almost certainly improves the quality of science reporting and we remove it at our peril:

"What a splendid idea! Drop all the barriers, get shot of this fuddy-duddy idea about having five minutes thought before we burst into speech and print. Then science too can reap all the so-evident benefits of more general 24 hour news: such as raising the quotient of speculation to established fact; and such as getting the first available "expert" to comment rather than the best one."

"Just good journalism"?

My e-mail informing journalists that Celia Hall, the Daily Telegraph’s health editor has been removed from the Science Media Centre’s contacts list for two months after an embargo break prompted a huge number of responses spanning every conceivable reaction. The majority congratulated us for taking a stand – these came mostly from other print and broadcast reporters who had either been yelled at by their newsdesks or had pre-planned filming and features spiked. Others, admittedly a minority, pointed out that removing one journalist rather than the paper itself was a rather lame sanction (this latter group usually ended their comments with ‘but don’t tell the Telegraph I said that!’ which of course I will not).

But the responses I wanted to address here are those that argued that the Telegraph’s front page splash was not ‘an embargo break’ but good journalism. Had these only come from our friends at the Telegraph I would have let the matter go but this argument came from several key journalists with whom we work and one member of our Advisory Board so I think it’s worth using my inaugural blog to explain why the Science Media Centre (SMC) stand by our decision.

For those not familiar with the story, let me give you a brief background. Over the past few years the SMC's reputation for running press briefings has meant that we have been approached by a variety of respected scientific bodies to jointly launch their stories. Occasionally these stories are hotly awaited by journalists and the embargo assumes centre stage in the media strategy – stories like the Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops, the launch of Bio-Bank and, last week, the findings from the Nuffield Council for Bioethics’ working group on the treatment of premature babies.

Given that the expert group was looking at such emotive issues as whether the UK should adopt a Dutch style threshold on the age at which medics should attempt to resuscitate very premature babies – we knew there was a high risk of embargo breaks and worked with the Nuffield press officer to ensure that everything was set up to avoid it. Having ‘survived’ the Sundays we then sent a reminder on Monday for the Tuesday briefing emphasising the Wednesday embargo and (at the request of one Celia Hall from the Telegraph!), organised a ‘lock-in’ to allow journalists time to read the full report before the briefing. The Nuffield press officer then started lining up working party member to do key broadcast interviews on the Wednesday morning.

Thinking we were home and dry I went out for a few congenial drinks on Monday night only to arrive home to see my mate Paxman holding up the Telegraph with the story splashed across the front – including the ‘top line’ that Nuffield was recommending that babies of 22 weeks and under should not automatically be given intensive care. When the Today programme and other broadcasters called to say they planned to lead on the Telegraph story there was no option but to lift the embargo. Suddenly the Nuffield Council’s control over the communication of this controversial and important story was seized from their hands with all the obvious consequences. The much sought after prime-time slots on the Today programme went to interviews with people who were not even on the working group; print journalist reported furious news desks offering less space and spiking long planned case studies and feature ideas; and the leading viability expert on the panel arrived late to the briefing because he had been rushing around TV news studios. There is no doubt that the quality and quantity of the media coverage for this report was adversely affected by the Telegraph splash – as of course was inevitable. Nuffield staff and working group members were angry, journalists were angry and what should have been yet another successful, enjoyable SMC briefing was dominated by recriminations over the embargo break.

But I am not writing this to tell my sad story – after all the best laid media plans regularly go awry for a variety of reasons and on this occasion we salvaged more than we often do because of the strength of the story itself. But there is one aspect of the reaction that I want to engage with and that’s the notion that because this wasn’t a traditional embargo break we should have let it pass.

For those of you who don’t live in the land of journalism – bear with me here. Celia Hall explained that she did not get the story from any embargoed material she received but instead received a phone call from a contact outside Nuffield and therefore not subject to embargo. In the eyes of Celia’s colleagues and a handful of other journalists, Celia was just doing what any good journalist would do and that’s running a story early based on a leak. The argument from this group can be summarised as “everyone one of us would do the same and anyone who says otherwise is lying”.

So let me be clear here – I absolutely accept the distinction between two ways of getting the story and that is reflected in the sanction we imposed (if she had taken it from an embargoed press release it would have been more like 6 months!!). But ironically it was the ‘anyone of us would do the same’ cry that persuaded the SMC of the need to take some form of action. If the embargo on a major story like this is so fragile that any journalist can ignore it on the strength of one phone call the day before, then all the more reason for us to protect our embargoed briefings by letting it be known that doing so will have consequences.

And how are press officers meant to protect embargoed stories from anonymous tip offs? One journalist politely suggested I would be better spending my time finding the culprit responsible for the leak rather than sanctioning the journalist – but how do we do that? Since Celia wouldn’t reveal the source, and presumably no journalist would, then we are powerless to act. Conversely, a lack of reaction from us merely serves to send the message out that the SMC is happy for journalists to run embargoed stories early as long as it came from a tip off rather than the embargoed press release. Is that really what journalists want? After all the embargo system is as useful to journalists as it is for press officers. Making it this elastic will have consequences for us all.

And I have to add that I do struggle with the notion that Celia's splash is a model of great journalism. Had she got the tip off 3 weeks earlier, than in a very real sense it would have been a coup. But getting her call less than 24 hours before the briefing, by which time embargoed press releases were circulating widely – sorry, but Woodward and Bernstein it wasn’t.

The Science Media Centre’s remit is to ensure that controversial science stories get the best possible coverage in the media. Journalists who undermine that by running a story known to be under embargo early – will face the only sanction open to us – removal from our lists.

Celia Hall got a tip off and made a judgement. That’s fine – she got her front page splash and she also got a 2 month ban – it’s a fair cop!