home page about SIRC articles publications leave message archives SIRC in the news links

Update

The revised guidelines developed in conjunction with the Royal Society are now here

Recent

The impact of the commercial world on children's wellbeing

Report of an independent assessment

Two years ago, in the Children's Plan, the DCSF committed itself to commission an independent assessment of the impact of the commercial world on children's wellbeing. That assessment, led by Professor David Buckingham, is now complete. As part of the process SIRC was commissioned to undertake two major reviews: Children and Family Life: Socio-Demographic Changes and The Ecology of Family Life. more

Recession Generation

Psychological impact & the lessons of recession

There can be very few people in Britain who are unaware that we have been living in times of recession…It is clear that people — even those unaffected directly — are worried, especially about their future financial security. But are there some positive lessons to be learnt? more

Life in the UK today

The role and citizen impact of Public Service Broadcasting

As a complement to the extensive work contributed by other players on the rapid advances in technology and consumer behaviour, the work is designed to review and present the available data on broader social trends which may impact on PSB in the future…more

Football passions

Passion, emotion and the 'beautiful game'

The Football Passions report summarises extensive sociological research across 18 countries in Europe. The objectives of the study were to capture the emotions of being a football fan and to compare the feelings, expressions and behaviour of fans associated with support of their football teams…more.

Code of Practice / Guidelines on Science and Health Communication.
Prepared by the Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the Royal Institution – Sept 2000

Rationale

Q: Why does it matter how health and science issues are reported?

A: It matters because misleading information is positively dangerous: it can even cost lives

There is a natural and inevitable tension between journalists and groups of professionals whose activities are the subject of widespread publicity.
No-one expects journalists and politicians always to agree on the way politics should be reported, and some difference of perspective and emphasis between journalists and the science community is similarly to be expected.
There is, however, a significant amount of common ground. All responsible journalists and all responsible scientists can agree, without prejudice to their editorial and professional freedoms, that the interests of the general public should always be paramount.
Information which is misleading, as well as information which is factually inaccurate, can cause real distress to vulnerable groups. At worst, it can even be argued that misleading information resulting in unjustified behavioural changes (e.g. reluctance to undergo vaccination because of a scare) can cost lives.

In the context of health and science reporting, we recommend that a simple hypothetical question should be used by both journalists and scientists as a rule of thumb to help judge where the public interest lies.

The hypothetical question is as follows:

You are a scientist about to be interviewed on research results you believe to be important. Or you are a journalist responsible for the reporting of the same research results.

Imagine you have a relative or close friend who is sensitive or vulnerable to information about a particular topic (for example, a cancer patient or a parent considering a vaccination for a child).

If the only source of information available to that relative or close friend was the interview you are about to give or the report you are about to publish, would you feel comfortable with the way you propose to characterise and interpret the story?