- Su Maskell
- 23 Oct 08, 03:25 PM
There's been a lot of interest in a story we've been reporting about the findings of a multiple sclerosis drug trial. Although the research is in its early stages, we thought it was of enough significance to report on its results so far. Here my colleague Branwen Jeffreys explains more about our reasons for covering this piece of medical research.
---
By Branwen Jeffreys
"Last night and today the BBC is reporting the research on the experimental use of a drug for people in the early years of multiple sclerosis. It could be years before its value is confirmed - and it passes through the many checks and balances needed before a drug is licensed as an accepted treatment. So why report it now, and how do we decide which pieces of medical research make the grade?
It's a tough call, and one we face almost every day in the health team where our e-mail bulges daily with potential stories. Each piece of research runs a gauntlet of checks - is it published in a peer-reviewed journal? That means the publication uses expert panels to check the research methods before accepting results for publication.
This MS research was in the respected New England Journal of Medicine. Professor Alastair Compston and his team at the University of Cambridge had co-ordinated the trial in 49 centres in the US and Europe. MS is his specialist field and he has decades of clinical experience with patients.
But this was only a phase II trial - that means the results must be replicated in clinical research using many more patients. The next stage - a phase III trial would be essential before getting a licence to use the drug this way. There had also been some serious side effects, one patient died.
So what swung it for this research? It compared alemtuzumab with the standard treatment in patients recently diagnosed. The difference was startling. The results showed reductions of more than 70% in accumulated disability and risk of relapse. Even allowing for a very healthy margin of error it looks like a sliver of hope for some MS patients albeit in the future. The next stage of research might temper the results, but is less likely to completely undermine them.
And that matters - MS affects millions around the world, there is no cure and it gradually causes disability. I huddled into a small studio with radio correspondent Adam Brimelow and Richard Warry, online editor, so we could all speak on the phone to golfer Tony Johnstone. His joy at being on the trial, and having MS held at bay enormously touched us all. We already knew the research was credible. When we put down the phone to Tony we knew it was also a cracking human story of how medical research has the potential to transform lives.
So with careful caveats about the experimental use of this drug only in patients newly diagnosed and the need for more research we put the story online and on air."
Su Maskell is health and science assignment editor
- Steve Mawhinney
- 23 Oct 08, 12:02 PM
I suspect that never before has the holiday island of Corfu received quite as much attention in the British media as it has in recent weeks. The extraordinary gathering this summer of politicians, media magnates and billionaires has spawned a plethora of stories.
At the centre of most of them, of course, have been two major figures in British politics - Lord Mandelson, the new business secretary and George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. What they said, and to whom, has received massive coverage across newspapers and other news organisations, ironically it appears kicked off by a conversation they had with one another at a now infamous taverna on the Greek isle.
Amidst the storm, questions have been raised about the BBC's coverage. Of course those questions are many and varied as always but there has been a particular accusation from some complainants that we did too much on the allegations against George Osborne and not enough on those against Lord Mandelson.
Let's deal with the Osborne story first. Here was a specific allegation of wrongdoing - indeed possible law-breaking - against the man holding the most sensitive post in the shadow cabinet outside of the leader. The claim - vehemently denied - that he solicited a donation to the Conservatives from a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, and talked about ways to secretly channel that donation to the party, on the face of it could have put him in breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
What's more, that allegation - made in a letter to The Times, who understandably led on the story - came from Nat Rothschild, someone who up until that point at least had been a long-term friend of Mr Osborne's, so much so that he was hosting Mr Osborne and his family at his Corfu home, and his mother had been funding the shadow chancellor's private office to the tune of £190,000. The BBC also learned that Mr Rothschild was willing to go to court to back up his claim and had another witness who would support his story.
In the light of the seriousness of the allegations - and the seriousness of the person making the claim - many BBC News outlets made the decision that this was an important story and chose to lead with it, as did every other major broadcaster and nearly every national newspaper.
But what about Lord Mandelson and his links with Oleg Deripaska? After all, while holding the position of EU trade commissioner he had stayed on Mr Deripaska's yacht in Corfu and indeed had dined with him previously on a number of occasions. This at a time, where he had supported moves to cut EU aluminium tariffs to the enormous benefit of Mr Deripaska, who owns the world's largest aluminium producer.
Well, the first thing to say is that there was no ban on reporting this and other questions, and BBC journalists immediately began looking into them. More importantly, when the BBC had its first opportunity to do a proper interview with Lord Mandelson following his reappointment to the cabinet, before the Osborne story broke, he was questioned robustly about the allegations (which you can watch here).
The reason the coverage so far has not been at the same level as that of George Osborne is that up until now there has been no similar specific allegation that Lord Mandelson has broken any laws. Nor, in Lord Mandelson's case, was there a specific, credible complainant in the same way as there was with Mr Osborne.
Nor does it appear at this stage (though questions are still being asked) that Lord Mandelson breached any EU code of conduct, however questionable his relationship with Mr Deripaska may or may not appear. Crucial to this, is the fact that while the UK ministerial code has rules about a perceived conflict of interest, the code of conduct for EU commissioners does not in the same way. Thus far the European Commission says he has done nothing wrong and has made it clear that the decision to cut aluminium tariffs followed a long debate amongst member states and was supported by them. It was not in his gift.
So, while the story was checked and questions were asked of Lord Mandelson by the BBC, the story did not make it on to our main news programmes. However in our coverage of the allegations against Mr Osborne, we have repeatedly made it clear that Lord Mandelson also faces questions about his relationship with Mr Deripaska.
We also spelt out the tangled relationships involved in the story in enough detail to allow audiences to make their own judgment about what role, if any, Lord Mandelson had in promoting the allegations against the shadow chancellor.
So, editorial decisions have been based on the seriousness of the allegations and the strength of the evidence. That will remain paramount in any future coverage of politicians who find themselves in the spotlight, though I suspect next summer there won't be quite such a rush to Corfu.
Steve Mawhinney is editor of Political News
- Jeremy Hillman
- 23 Oct 08, 11:52 AM
There's an old joke about the difference between a recession and a depression. A recession is when your neighbour loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours. A depression is also what I sometimes feel when I read what some newspapers say about the BBC's reporting of the financial crisis and the language we choose to use.
Firstly, it's reported today that the BBC has banned any reference to the term "crisis". Er, no, we haven't. It's true that tomorrow we're having a day devoted to taking the temperature of the economy around the UK and how it's affecting people, which we're calling "The Downturn". But that doesn't mean we're losing our financial crisis branding when we cover further bank or financial shocks and indeed we'll be using it even tomorrow on our international coverage.
Secondly, it's suggested we're using Downturn in place of the word "recession". Luckily anyone who has watched any of our output this week will know that one's wrong too. Both the prime minister and the governor of the Bank of England have said it's likely we're heading in to a recession and we're saying that in our reports too. In fact we've been reporting the possibility of a recession for months. So, why don't we label our day tomorrow "The Recession" and be done with it? Simply because we may well be in a recession but we won't get any official confirmation of that for a while yet. A recession is two quarters of negative growth and as soon as we're in one you'll hear it from us.
The criticism we're not being gloomy enough about the economy is well balanced by other criticism we've been getting that we're talking down the economy and being too pessimistic. I suppose we should comfort ourselves that we're getting criticism both ways which must put us in about the right place. What I do know for a fact is that our audiences to our radio, TV and online coverage have all grown significantly during this financial crisis (oops, banned word!) and I'd like to thank so many of you for turning to our coverage at this very unsettling time.
Meanwhile if you have a story to tell us about how the economy is affecting you please e-mail us at: bbc.co.uk/haveyoursay
Jeremy Hillman is editor of the business and economics unit
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)