The financial downturn may have knocked health off the top spot of the news agenda, but cancer is still considered the number one health concern by the British public. In the minds of the general reader, cancer remains a killer at large and science is far from finding a cure. Fear drives the relentless coverage which bounces between cures, failures, hope and despair.

These core issues and more drove discussion between a prestigious panel and an audience of medical journalists at the session Reporting cancer breakthroughs: striking the right note. The line up of speakers was impressive and consisted of Franco Cavalli, Director of The Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Stella Kyriakides, president of Europa Donna – The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Michael Richards, National Cancer Director for the UK’s NHS, Phil Thomson, Vice President, Corporate Media Relations at Glaxo-SmithKline plc, Axel Ullrich, Director of the Department of Molecular Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biology, and Pawel Walewski, medical journalist from Polityka, Poland. Kathy Redmond, from the European School of Oncology, both produced and chaired the event.

Commenting on the perception of fear that pervades cancer reporting, Axel Ullrich explained that cancer is the essence of life although it kills many. He said: “It starts with a single cell and with every cell cycle new mutations accumulate, so drug development finds it difficult to keep up with this moving target. It’s a huge challenge to scientists to kill every cancer cell in the body.”

But it is likewise a huge challenge to cancer reporting to balance the editorial needs of news reporting with the accuracies and fine detail demanded by scientific research. Franco Kavoli pointed out that it may be medicine, but the rules of reporting are the same as for other news pages. He stressed that the principle of zeitgeist often prevails. “One important point is that the current ideology at any one time can determine the news agenda in cancer - so right now it is targeted therapies and molecular biology. However, in reporting the issue of the day, we need to read the good and the bad because a woman in the UK is much less likely to die of cervical cancer today, but a woman in the developing world cannot access these advances and will die. If the public think the HPV vaccines are available all around the world then screening might stop and many people will be put at risk.”

Stella Kyriakides explained that eleven years ago in Cyprus, they were happy with the two words breast cancer somewhere in a headline but that today they expected much more. She shed light on the changing nature of cancer reporting around the world and the different meanings attached to findings and that journalists should understand their words may influence patients. “Most people want to read cancer news. It provides a sense of hope, but this can sometimes raise false hopes. We have a responsibility when reporting on cancer, because someone somewhere reading the story will find it very relevant to their life. We all have to be part of one and the same orchestra and strike the same note!” she concluded.

Stakeholders in the cancer community from patient to reporter to scientist and more formed the nub of Richards’ address. He acknowledged that journalists need to publish and make a living. Editors thrive on headlines. Researchers and funding bodies need recognition and charities need funds.  “The old adage of ‘publish or perish’ rings true, but some scientists are to blame because they are publicity-junkies. But journalists also need to ask themselves whether they have any moral duty beyond selling papers? Is there a duty to tell the truth, balance the arguments, educate the public?”

Richards’ point was made abundantly clear when he held up the front cover of that day’s copy of the Daily Express: ‘Ultrasound cancer cure’. The headline alone occupied two-thirds of the page. So what have we got to worry about?

Becky McCall