New guidelines have been drawn up by a European think tank to help prevent unnecessary anxiety or false hope after scientists give their expert views to the press.

The media is often accused of hyping research findings in order to attract the interest of their readers and viewers.

But researchers realised that distortions and misunderstandings can arise when the scientists themselves fail to communicate the results of their work in a clear and meaningful way.

As part of a European Commission project, new guidelines for scientists on how to communicate most effectively with the media have been produced by the Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the Amsterdam School of Communications Research.

They were developed after extensive consultation with science, health and journalism experts across Europe, as well as representatives of journalism and media organisations, government departments and agencies, and special interest groups.

The guidelines cover why scientists should talk to journalists at all, whether to use a press officer and how to communicate risks and benefits, how to put risks in context and what the “public interest” is.

The 16-page advice document, which comes from a 413-page research report from the Social Issues Research Centre, said: “The popular media are not routinely in the business of providing a free help service for scientists. They exist not only to inform their readers and viewers but also to entertain and to present polemical standpoints.

“They are also in the business of selling papers or maintaining ratings in order to make profits or justify public investment in the form of licence fees or taxes.

”While there are numerous examples of how the media have ‘hyped’ science stories and generated unnecessary anxieties in the absence of real empirical evidence, there are equally examples of where scientists have communicated, say, data relating to risks in such a manner that public misunderstandings have been almost inevitable.

”This has led to understandable tensions between scientists and journalists.”

The work has also resulted in a laypersons’ guide to decoding science and health stories, reminding readers to see if facts and figures have a proper source.