Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome (2001)

Lancet press officer's reply Sir—As press officer, I empathise with the views expressed by Maj Hulten and Marc Peschanski. Collectively, they (as investigators), and The Lancet (as publishers), were caught out by unfortunate third-party miscom-munication that led to the breaking of two press embargoes and subsequent mishandling of the media around the time of publication. Badly handled public-relations activity can cause a situation to spin out of control. In these two instances, we were forced by external events to publish the reports on the internet ahead of scheduled production in the print journal. Hulten's report on Down's syndrome largely owes its media fate to the publicity machine of the UK science programme Tomorrow's World. This high-profile programme featured the fluoresence in-situ hybridisation procedure a few days after the print journal was published with no threat to our embargo. However, a naïve press release from the British Broadcasting Corporation sent out 2 weeks before broadcast aimed at whetting the appetites of news editors around the globe led to the emergence of headlines without the full information. We and Hulten and colleagues were put under much pressure that forced our hand as publishers. Within a few hours, the full text of the study, and an antihype press release from us, were in the public domain. The next week, the preliminary study of Peschanski and colleagues was announced by a French health minister. As with the Down's syndrome report, just enough information was conveyed for a French journalist to create a lead story in his newspaper the next day. We take a straightforward approach to media relations. However, as illustrated, events sometimes conspire to create the mismanagement of media messages, with obvious damaging effects to patients, clinicians, the public, and a questioning of the integrity of investigators and publisher. Publication in high-impact journals immediately puts work under the media microscope, especially if reports warrant press releases. However, the main function of press releases is to explain research findings in plain english, to provide context, and, if necessary, to urge caution in the interpretation of preliminary findings. This sensible approach to such preliminary work1MacKie RM Stewart B Brown SM Intralesional injection of herpes simplex virus 1716 in metastatic melanoma.Lancet. 2001; 357: 525-526Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (137) Google Scholar can result in responsible, intelligent press coverage, especially in the absence of early leaks by politicians or publicity-seeking third parties–no breaking of embargo, no fuss. Formal peer review of press releases is unthinkable, given the short timeframe involved. All our press releases are scrutinised by senior colleagues and the researchers before they are issued. More than 99% of the time investigators are ready to explain their research to the media. This harmonious situation is a result of careful planning, coordination, and execution. The annoying but sometimes inevitable reality is that other interest groups occasionally turn up unexpectedly and spoil the party.