You say ‘effective’, I say ‘efficacy’ - Do the media need to better understand the language of science and quality?
Like most people, we have been watching the reports of the various channels of development in the Covid-19 vaccine with some interest. One of the topics this has raised in the office though is the way the pharma industry and (for reasons I will explain later in the article) quality, in particular, is being reported by the press and through social media. It is fascinating as people who work with pharma businesses, to see how the science and the process of production is being presented. Even though we are not 'in the labs' so to speak, we do have a deeper understanding of the industry than the general public, so perhaps we are uniquely placed to be seeing things with one foot in either camp.
It is also apparently not only us that have become more interested in this topic. There have been several articles recently about how the simplification of scientific language can lead to misunderstandings. On the one side of the debate, it seems the press is trying to make the science accessible to the general public but, on the other side of the fence, this could potentially result in misunderstanding. I suppose there is, and possibly always will be, a gulf between how science is practised and how the public perceives it. Arguably some of the blame can perhaps be placed at the media’s feet, and the tabloid press, in particular. They are often considered the devils in their lack of detail. That said, there is also some validity in the argument that it is unfair to ask the public to understand a process they are not trained in or working with every day. The press is merely seeking to simplify a difficult topic.
At the time of writing, as we mentioned earlier, there is a rather pertinent example of this readily available in the release of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines for general use. The Sun newspaper loudly proclaimed that the vaccine was '…more than 90 per cent effective at preventing Covid-19'. While you could argue that this is a true statement, it is also potentially misleading. As many highly informed commentators pointed out, the vaccine was producing a result of over 90% efficacy in controlled test conditions. To suggest, as The Sun seemed to be saying, that the test results obtained by administering the drug to, for example, a healthy 35-year-old, would be the same as they would for a patient with a compromised immune system, or even someone twice that age, is not a realistic expectation. Efficacy, in this case, was potentially a very different thing to being proven as blanket effective in a practical way. As it turned out, the vaccine does seem to be highly effective across a range of patients so far, but that doesn't alter the fact that the initial portrayal was somewhat inaccurate.
That said, is it fair of the scientific and broader pharma community to expect those outside it to fully understand the meticulousness with which they use words such as efficacy? Is there a duty, or at least a level of responsibility, to ensure that the precise language used by the industry is translated appropriately into the outside world?
Quality in Pharma
Quality is a good case in point. In our role as recruitment specialists, we meet thousands of people with successful career paths in the Pharma arena, and they all know that quality must be built in at every stage of development. Total quality management is an inherent part of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Specialists in quality methods and control in the pharma arena are in high demand, and most manufacturers, regardless of size, are continually asking us to find new team members in this area. In short, quality experts are in such demand because this is an industry that relies on quality processes. It is doubtful, however, that the general public understands the role these key team members play in maintaining a cohesive, safe and thoroughly tested development process. To bring an effective and reliable vaccine to the public would typically take potentially a decade or more, so the work involved in bringing a Covid-19 one to general use in less than a year is, frankly, incredible. Amazing and outstanding work has been achieved by everyone involved - yet it seems that is not really newsworthy in a general sense.
The level of quality control applied during the creation of the various vaccines for Covid-19 has been no less stringent than any other. Accelerated development does not mean cutting corners or a reduction in the quality process. Sometimes, though, we do feel frustrated on behalf of our candidates and clients when we see the various unfounded and uninformed comments about 'untested' vaccines and similar on social media in particular. It seems simple enough that additional resources and the hard work of dedicated teams of professionals can result in an accelerated production cycle. However, some people find that difficult to accept.
At the risk of going full circle here, honestly, we can see both sides of this. Indeed, it would be nice to see a little more credit given to the work of the pharma community and the quality it so carefully maintains, but we also see the need for the press to be accessible.
We would love your thoughts on this subject so please do drop us a comment.
Using only accurate language of course…