2 February 2004

Submit Research to Expert Scrutiny, Public Tells Scientists

75% of the British public have no idea what 'peer review in scientific publications' means, or can't define it correctly according to a new MORI poll commissioned by the Science Media Centre and Nature.(1)

However the survey also shows that the vast majority (71%) of the public favour replication or the kind of scrutiny provided by peer review - the process by which scientists review and criticize each others' work before they make it public.

When asked what scientists whose research raises concerns about the possible risks to human health and safety should do, 30% opted for something along the lines of peer review. 41% want an even more rigorous system where results are replicated by other scientists and results confirmed before going public.

Fewer than one in ten people believe that scientists whose findings had raised concerns about possible risks to human health and safety should issue these straight to the media

Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, said:

"This poll strengthens our appeal to the scientific community to talk more about the way science works. At a time when people are bombarded with information about the risks of everything from MMR to GM crops to mobile phones, peer review could be one way of navigating the waters. It's surely time for scientists to share their secret - that there is a process relied on by scientists to sort out the wheat from the chaff."

Philip Campbell, Editor of Nature, said:

"While there are plenty of valid criticisms of peer review within science, it remains the case that no scientist would give a research finding much credence unless it's been peer reviewed. On emotive issues around our health it is even more important to use this quality control mechanism and the public seem to be saying that if neither peer review nor replication existed, they would want us to create something along the same lines. The public also seems to be giving the thumbs down to scientists who bypass peer review and go straight to the media with their concerns."

Michele Corrado, Head of Medicine and Science Research at MORI said:

"These results demonstrate that, in the wake of much contention about science, the public favours validation and scrutiny of scientific research results over direct release to the media. This clearly indicates a vote of support for some form of quality control mechanism. Furthermore, people who can correctly define what peer review means, and one assumes therefore have an understanding of it, more often favour replication and scrutiny by scientists."

The survey was commissioned by the Science Media Centre to coincide with the publication of its new guide for scientists, Communicating Peer review in a Soundbite. The guide, compiled by scientists and journalists, is aimed at encouraging scientists to use the opportunities provided by media interviews on hot topics to explain exactly what peer review is.(2)  

For more information please call Fiona Fox on 020 7670 2981

Notes to Editors:

1. MORI Social Research Institute interviewed a representative quota sample of 1,104 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain via Omnibus methodology, from 4-11 December 2003. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in-home, in 200 sampling points using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing). Data have been weighted to the known profile of the British population.

2. Peer Review in a Nutshell - A Guide to your news interview is produced by the Science Media Centre and funded by COPUS. Order copies here.

Note for editors

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is an independent venture working to promote voices, stories and views from the scientific community to the news media when science is in the headlines. Over 50 sponsors including scientific institutions, media groups, corporate organisations and individuals fund the Centre, with donations capped at 5% of the running costs to preserve its independence. The team at the Centre is guided by a respected Scientific Panel and Board of Advisors. This press release contains the personal opinions of those acknowledged; which represent neither the views of the SMC nor any other organisation unless specifically stated.

For more details see our website www.sciencemediacentre.org, please e-mail the Science Media Centre with your comments on our service at smc@sciencemediacentre.org

Click here to see the Topline Results