The language of science is precise and instrumental. In contrast, journalistic language is often chosen for richness of reference and suggestiveness. Scientists or, in this case, physicians are used to directing their professional communication to an audience trained in their discipline. They often forget that some words with special meanings in a scientific context may be interpreted quite differently by the lay reader. For biomedical researchers, the critical experiment is also defined as evidence.
Most laypersons accept as evidence anecdotal information or individual cases.
Thus the media considered the experience of the individual women as news. While physicians wanted aggregate data, reporters wrote of the immediate concerns of their readers. Finally, an important source of strain between scientists and journalists lies in the ambiguity about the appropriate role for the press. Many professionals talk about the press as a conduit or pipeline, responsible for converting technical information into a form where it may be easily transported to the public. Regarding the press as a technique to further technical or medical goals, they expect to control the flow of information to the public just as they do within their own domain, and feel betrayed when their views are challenged.