As it turns out, our client’s Wikipedia page and the subsequent pages explaining the drug and other scientific terms were somewhat misleading.  These Wikipedia pages had been created by a source externally who had not taken the time to consider whether the mechanism of action was clearly defined.

As the misleading statements on Wikipedia were consistent with the often made factual errors, we were led to believe that journalists were using sources like Wikipedia when writing their stories.  This is not to say they assume Wikipedia is completely factual — no; rather, if Wikipedia manages to link two similar phenomena that aren’t actually the same, most people will be confused.

In today’s New York Times, Virginia Heffernan describes how the process of fact-checking has changed since the internet and specifically how editorials today are more interested in using facts as rhetorical devices than identifiable objects.  As the nuance of ‘fact’ has changed with the invent of the ‘Google-able factoid,’ factuality is now a more difficult achievement in journalism.

Particularly, she notes that, just like Wikipedia, old tomes of reference were just as prone to “wacko…off-the-wall data that hardly seemed to be proper objects of empirical study.” And just like the time before the internet, fact-checkers would use periodicals like the Times or the Washington Post as confirmation…only to find out that they were just as fallible.

Journalists who check their own facts will go to reference sites and other periodicals for confirmation, so it is crucial to correct errors as they come along.  It is also useful to use resources like Wikipedia to prospectively correct commonly misunderstood ideas.  Wikipedia allows anyone to edit articles to most closely approach factuality; use your knowledge to improve its accuracy.  Further, consider explaining a concept, like the mechanism of action, and then inserting a note of what it is not.  Verbalize the common misunderstanding and preempt any further factual errors.

Its a difficult, fast-paced, 24-hour-news-cycle world out there.  Your target audiences will use online resources to learn more about your company, and they will benefit if you can provide them with the best most accurate information.

“Taking Medical Jargon Out of Doctor Visits”

One study estimates that the “costs to the health-care system of low health literacy, such as patients not taking their medications or seeking appropriate treatment, amount to as much as $238 billion a year.”

Hard to understand medical language, it seems, may actually be the cause of poor health outcomes and billions of dollars in wasteful spending.  As such, it is an obvious target for the improvement of the health care system in general.  The Health Literacy Action Plan is a federal program which aims to encourage medical communicators, whether plans or providers, to simplify their language for general consumption.

Her article refers to certain words such as “petechiae,” meaning skin rash, or “hyperlipidemia,” meaning high level of fats in the blood, which suggest the way in which one might restate medical terms in plain English (in this case) to more effectively describe an individual’s medical state.

Taking this into consideration, it seems a helpful exercise when writing about healthcare for the lay audience, perhaps the mainstream media.  For even the most sophisticated journalist, an explanation in plain English will limit the number of misunderstandings that find their way into articles.  If you have a background in the material, complex verbiage may actually make sense; but those who are hearing words for the first time may struggle. The goal, then, is to simplify.  You will of course have those who just miss the information and are happy to correct a mistake, but clear explanations will certainly limit the number of times this happens.

Any good story can be told simply and elegantly — and everyone should be able to understand it.

In the June 28 & July 5 double issue of Newsweek, the title is simple: “The Science of Healthy Living.”  In Mary Carmichael’s article, ‘Healthy at Any Age’ (from which the quote above comes), she describes the mass of medical information we do have, and the limits of that information: poorly designed trials, disagreement among expert panels on guidelines and even the complexity of newly acquired genetic information.

She suggests using the basic mantra of “moderation.”  Common sense can answer a number of questions, but they can be further answered by a balanced approach of awareness of your health, openness in discussing it with doctors and friends and a thoughtful approach to consuming health information.

Using ‘moderation’ as a model for health information consumption, one can formulate a PR program that takes advantage of this simplicity.

1. Awareness

As people become more aware of their bodies and their health statistics (whether cholesterol, lipids, blood glucose or weight), frame your message within that context.  Ask the question, what does our message mean to them?  What numbers can help them understand where they fit?

2. Openness

People are beginning to discuss private health matters more openly, whether with friends, family members or physicians.  This may be through social media or just a conversation; in a PR program, it helps to give people the tools to discuss their health intelligently.  What might their friends ask them?  What would a doctor want to know?  Your message should attempt to capture language that speaks to both indirect audiences.

3.  Thoughtfulness

We are all health information consumers, and, though not always specialists in the field, we do know more than generations before us.  Credibility is key to engaging a sophisticated audience of health consumers.  Explain the data, tell the truth and provide your audience with information that speaks to their concerns and puts the message into context.

With these tactics, one can satisfy your audience with the most appropriate knowledge for achieving the most holistic understanding of their health. A healthful message is the first step in healthy interpretation.

What do you expect from the next generation of PR professionals?

The only thing they’re going to have to learn is to really listen — to understand exactly what the objective is before they start acting.  They’re action-oriented; they’re ready to roll on a moment’s notice.  I try to slow them down and say, “Make sure that you understand before you go.”  Even in this day of 24-hour news cycles.  Before you start talking, you better understand what it is you’re talking about and what the issue is.

We agree.  In a time where communication can happen so quickly, and crises are lived by the second and not the day, many PR professionals do become reactive.  In reacting, your heart rate is increased, your adrenaline is pumping and your thoughts may not be as clear and as calculated as they could be.  Often for crisis tasks, you want to respond swiftly, but with strategy and process.  To listen means to take a step back — don’t assume and don’t react emotionally.  Rather take the time to consider the situation, its implications, and the most efficient and effective path forward.

Preparation, even on short notice, can improve the quality of PR communication immensely.

All meeting abstracts are governed by the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions embargo policy. An embargo means that information from any abstract or presentation may not be announced, publicized or distributed before the embargo date and time. This applies to all formats of abstract publication—including abstracts on CD, the hard copy Diabetes Abstract Book, online via the Association’s website, scientificsessions.diabetes.org, and other presentations.

As Ivan Oransky says on his blog, “In other words, all of those abstracts are freely available online, but no one can write about them…”

Many of the more prolific biotech writers, including TheStreet.com’s Adam Feuerstein, are taking to Twitter to talk about why it is that they can’t write about the abstracts.  Oransky makes the interesting point that analysts are not beholden to any embargo to make their stock picks.  Rather, the information is public, it will be used, and sadly journalists are the only ones unable to discuss it.

Like ASCO before it, ADA’s release of the abstracts online affords the market a sneak-peak at the data to be presented.  Why, then, are they uncomfortable with media use?  Wouldn’t it benefit them to have some interest ahead of the conference?

I guess we’ll never know.

According to Kang, “Guidances are meant to reflect  the agency’s current thinking.  It’s one way to elaborate more on a topic because sometimes there are questions.  Obviously our regulations did not anticipate YouTube and Twitter.”

MM&M explains that the guidance will address the following four topics:

1.   For what are online communications companies accountable?

2.  How can companies fulfill regulatory requirements, such as fair balance and risk information disclosure in space-limited media, such as search ads or Twitter posts, and tools that allow for real-time communications?

3.  What parameters apply to the posting or corrective information on third-party Web sites?

4.  When is the use of links appropriate?

The guidance will not, however, address the online reporting of side effects or AEs, which is under the jurisdiction of another office at the agency.  Of course, this guidance will certainly hope to clarify what should and should not be done by companies online and thus expand the opportunities to use online and social media in the most effective and appropriate way.

The Economist explores the nature of synthetic biology in the article “And man made life” in the May 20 issue of the magazine.

Discussing the recently unveiled first bacterium with an artificial genome, the piece picks apart the reasons for excitement and those for concern when approaching this undeniable achievement:

The risk of accidentally creating something bad is probably low. Most bacteria opt for an easy life breaking down organic material that is already dead. It doesn’t fight back. Living hosts do. Creating something bad deliberately, whether the creator is a teenage hacker, a terrorist or a rogue state, is a different matter. No one now knows how easy it would be to turbo-charge an existing human pathogen, or take one that infects another type of animal and assist its passage over the species barrier. We will soon find out, though.

It is hard to know how to address this threat. The reflex, to restrict and ban, has worked (albeit far from perfectly) for more traditional sorts of biological weapons. Those, though, have been in the hands of states. The ubiquity of computer viruses shows what can happen when technology gets distributed.

Thoughtful observers of synthetic biology favour a different approach: openness. This avoids shutting out the good in a belated attempt to prevent the bad. Knowledge cannot be unlearned, so the best way to oppose the villains is to have lots of heroes on your side. Then, when a problem arises, an answer can be found quickly. If pathogens can be designed by laptop, vaccines can be, too. And, just as “open source” software lets white-hat computer nerds work against the black-hats, so open-source biology would encourage white-hat geneticists.

Regulation—and, especially, vigilance—will still be needed. Keeping an eye out for novel diseases is sensible even when such diseases are natural. Monitoring needs to be redoubled and co-ordinated. Then, whether natural or artificial, the full weight of synthetic biology can be brought to bear on the problem. Encourage the good to outwit the bad and, with luck, you keep Nemesis at bay.

Read the full article here.

While once only provided only to members of ASCO, this privileged information is now released to the public.  This change resulted from the historic dissemination of abstracts to opportunistic investors.  On titles alone, certain stocks have surged ahead of the meeting, according to The Street‘s Adam Feuerstein. Come tomorrow evening, analysts will hop online and “rush to glean winners and losers.”

In this case, the abstract actually becomes a tool for investor relations — not merely an application to present.  This is the preview for investors that can excite them ahead of ‘the big dance.’ Feuerstein adds a caveat that the early deadline for ASCO abstracts means that companies will “want to present data that isn’t fully analyzed yet.” This forces both companies to build an abstract strategically and investors to keep their analysis smart, not too enthusiastic.

Of course, Feuerstein reminds us that the meeting itself brings us a round of late-breaking abstracts and the real, fully-analyzed data sets.  This continues to drive stock prices on the heels of the abstracts and forms the basis for the media’s treatment of all of the cancer drugs in development.

Data presented to a “packed auditorium of 15,000 people” (in the case of Genentech’s Herceptin a few years ago) will certainly captivate media attention more so than a poster sitting in a dark corner.  The media may assign significance to data based on the size of the crowd that turns up to the presentation, and invitations to present are generally based on the quality of the abstract.  While the media is not the primary audience for data, they are the filter that can transmit the information gleaned at ASCO to analysts and investors not in attendance.

The data is the turkey dinner, but the abstract serves to whet the palate.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/

Katie Hobson speaks to “health and the business of health” on the Wall Street Journal’s health blog:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/

The New York Times’ , “Well, Tara Parker-Pope on Health,” blends reflections on recent health news with recipes and Q&A’s to take a multifaceted approach:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/

If we head to drug discovery and the pharmaceutical industry, Derek Lowe offers his perspective and synthesis in a blog called In the Pipeline:

http://pipeline.corante.com/

Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview is an op-ed look at the health news of the day:

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/