UCSF Researchers Talk to a National Gathering of Science Writers

Journalists who specialize in presenting science to the public flocked to the San Francisco Bay Area recently for the annual meeting of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). The 2008 meeting was hosted by the NASW in conjunction with Stanford University. Science journalism lives on, as the trend toward cuts in newspaper coverage has been offset in part by online coverage. The meeting included workshops on how to create science stories that will see the light of day and be noticed in a changing media environment. The meeting also featured three days of scientific presentations. Topics ranged widely. One well-represented theme was research on neurobiology and human behavior, perception and performance. There also were talks on terrorism; efforts to account for dark energy in the universe; studies that seek to identify and explain irrational and often disturbing human tendencies toward bias; and genetic evolution, evolutionary adaptation and birth defects – to name just a few. UCSF Researchers Participate Two UCSF researchers helped represent biomedical research at the meeting. Joseph DeRisi, PhD, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at UCSF, talked about his use of new genetic tools and databases to discover new viral disease agents. Lisa Bero, PhD, professor of clinical pharmacy at UCSF, talked about studies to identify and gauge the impacts of conflicts of interest in the conduct, reporting and withholding of research findings from clinical trials. DeRisi’s viral sleuthing is a collaborative effort between his lab and the laboratory of UCSF virologist Donald Ganem, MD, PhD. DeRisi told several detective stories. He related his team’s success in identifying causes of human respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases; a cause of a wasting disease that can devastate parrot populations; and a major viral suspect as a cause of a disease that is wiping out honeybee colonies. Bero outlined several studies that point to an association between drug company sponsorships and the reported results and conclusions. Drug company sponsorship is associated with both results and conclusions being more likely to favor the company’s drug. Sometimes, favorable conclusions do not appear to be supported by the reported data, Bero discovered. Bero said that many company-sponsored clinical trials appear to be performed for marketing rather than scientific reasons. In discussing clinical trials on statins, the blockbuster drugs aimed at preventing heart disease and stroke by lowering cholesterol, Bero noted that there has never been a head-to-head comparison of all the major statins. There is no incentive for drug companies to do such a study, she said. Bero suggested that other funding sources need to come forward to do these studies; she cited the example of government-funded studies in Italy. Health insurers, as they seek to include the most cost-effective drugs in their formularies, might also have an interest in these important comparative trials, she said. Bero is a very active member of the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of researchers who volunteer to review published literature on selected topics, and who accept no “conflicted” funding to conduct the reviews. Cochrane researchers pool the results of vetted clinical trials to conduct a meta-analysis, a sometimes powerful way to reach conclusions about the usefulness and side effects of drugs. In the middle of dispensing several cautionary tales, Bero inserted a cautionary quip: “Don’t believe a single study – even if I do it.”