One thing that has marked this election is the growing focus on science issues. This has partly been down to the interest of some politicians in the subject, and mostly due to the activism of a number of scientists (natural and social), science journalists and bloggers.

The focus of these discussions has been around tackling key issues around science (funding, support, listening to expertise etc). And while it is really important these topics are being debated, I’d invite a step back to think a little bit more about the way politicians understand and use ‘evidence’ from science and healthcare in practice. Otherwise we may miss opportunities to work with politicians and inform political thinking – and in turn help the public on key issues around health, education, innovation and technology.

In order to explore some of these core issues I’d like to reflect on my experiences of working with the Department of Health (DH) on their sexual health campaigns, where I had the chance to see where there are major barriers to using, applying and understanding good approaches to sound science. Which results in misleading information and a lot of money wasted.

I began volunteering on the DH campaigns in 2001 and between then and 2008 I increased the work I was doing, eventually becoming both a consultant and spokesperson on the public sexual health campaigns RUThinking, Playing Safely, Want Respect? Use A Condom (see also their great ad campaign), and Condom Essential Wear. Most of which have now been updated for Sex and Young People and Sex, worth talking about (where I currently volunteer for NHS Choices answering questions on psychosexual health topics).

This work involved identifying core evidence to underpin key messaging and liaising with civil servants, ministers and PR companies to ensure accurate, accessible and engaging messages were shared at a variety of different audiences in diverse formats (print, online and broadcast media as well as live events like music festivals).

I came to this work through my background as an academic who teaches healthcare practitioners and policymakers internationally how to access, critically appraise and understand evidence. And through my research which has focused on the sex and relationships health topics of education, service improvement of reproductive health, and addressing psychosexual problems, with a particular interest in media and public health campaigning. All of which I apply via advice giving through educational events, practitioner training and the media.

I was honoured to be part of the campaigning work and believe there were a number of key areas where major achievements were made around getting sex talked about within the media, and particularly with young people. There were some great examples of innovative practice and in the activities I was involved in we ensured work was ethical, based on sound evidence, while still being engaging.

However, during the seven years of working on the campaigns I noticed a number of core problems. I don’t know if these are repeated within other government departments, but it would be worth investigating whether the issues outlined below are happening elsewhere. My hunch is they’re not unique to health.

It was for that reason I asked the Guardian’s Science Test of politicians (by Martin Robbins) to clarify how political parties intended to oversee and manage public health campaigns and associated PR companies.

Here are the key areas I noticed problems around the application and interpretation of research and evidence:

Bidding for contracts
The majority of public engagement activity run by the government (and via political parties) is organised through PR companies. That in itself is not problematic, PR companies are experts in ensuring messages reach the right people in a timely fashion. What is problematic is for health, education and other campaigns there seems to be frequent bidding process orchestrated by different government departments. Meaning several months on any contract will be spent preparing to bid to renew it (in competition with other PR companies). And until any bids have been renewed no new activity can take place. Which restricts the amount of work you can do to reach the public.

There is also the difficulty posed when a PR company is replaced. Where the company who has held the contract has built up their own contacts, messages, experience in delivering information and goodwill among the media. Because they are a commercial organisation this information remains with them if they lose the contract. Meaning the incoming agency has to begin from scratch building up these contacts, there is no organisational memory, and a lot of time lost in repeating activities. It also means experience built up on campaigns can be lost.

Uncertainty of messaging
During the time I worked on the DH campaigns there were periods where ministers were unsure about the direction in which they intended to go. That was not because they were engaged in a systematic review of the evidence which might help them decide, but because they were anxious about media and public responses to their messages. Particularly relating to sensitive issues like contraception, teenage pregnancy and STIs. It took three years to move the more fragmented ’sex lottery’ campaign of 2003 into the national media run ‘Condom Essential Wear’ launched in 2006. [This was the first widespread government-backed public media campaign on STIs since the HIV/AIDS one of the 1980s]. Fear over how the press/public will respond led to haphazard delivery of messaging, also hampered by a limited budget.

It has also led more recently to overlooking evidence of good practice – which is about easier access to services, accessibility of testing and treatment, combined with prevention messaging. Instead the government has opted far more towards promoting testing, and has moved away from their 2006 approach which suggested prevention based messaging/normalising condom use. This appears to be based around cost decisions and attempts to deal with rising STI rates. While it is right that we alter messages depending on new information from research and evaluation, it is problematic if politicians and civil servants do not understand this process, or ignore it in favour of activity that is based around anticipated public opposition or healthcare spending cuts. And equally worrying given it muddles the public and healthcare staff around what they should be doing.

Reinventing the wheel
In the past decade our public sexual health campaigns have begun with the Sex Lottery, which became Playing Safely, which morphed into Condom Essential Wear and is currently Sex, worth talking about. And that’s just the campaign aimed at young adults. Teen campaigns for sexual health, general health and pregnancy have also morphed in similar ways. This has included new websites, logos, branding and core messaging for each iteration of the campaign. And within each development an additional range of agencies working on digital, creative, and marketing tasks. While material written for the web has been reused for some of these campaigns, in many cases new content has had to be created although again not always based on core evidence. It results in confusion to the public who are presented with different names, brands, and websites to find. Individual NHS trusts paying for their own sexual health websites that replicate content found on government ones wastes additional money. All of which results in a lot of activity, a lot of money spent, but no real sense of outcomes – the impact such campaigns have had. Sadly the focus of evaluation is often reduced simply to mentions within the media or visits to the campaign websites. Again indicating a lack of awareness of how to fully assess activity undertaken.

Flashy, gimmicky, but has it worked?
One aspect of the public sexual health campaigns has been a focus on getting young people involved. That has included viral videos, myspace pages, interviews with celebrities and texting services. More recently England’s Sexual Health Quiz was launched. Critics have questioned why this uses a kids vs parents approach (given evidence indicates competitive based education in this area is rarely successful). Other concerns have been expressed about the accuracy of the questions (particularly relating to cancer) and whether knowing how much water a condom holds really tells you anything about your ‘knowledge’ of sex and relationships, or your sexual health needs.

All of these activities are clearly costly, and most of them are focused online, which excludes large numbers of the population. We also have no idea how much they have cost, or what impact they have had. When asked, the Department of Health’s response to me was the latest quiz encourages ‘friendly conversation’ between parents and teens and provides right and wrong information. They had no information about whether this approach had been successfully piloted or was working to increase communication between parents and young people.

We have no idea whether, post election, the current quiz will still exist, or whether the data will be used to inform public health campaigning in the future.

Activity that doesn’t make the headlines
While we may be concerned over the quality of public engagement activity, there is the additional problem of campaigns that are paid for, but fail to reach the public or make much impact. For example one survey called ‘pulling pants’ was carried out for the DH by Tickbox which was to identify whether people chose ‘lucky pant’s to go out in. The survey indicated people spent time thinking about what underwear to wear – and clearly did have special undies they wore in the hope of pulling. But they did not put the same focus on taking condoms with them. This was a playful message, but actually quite important if you think about intentions to have sex. However, despite the survey being designed, run, data collected and the PR and polling company paid, it never made it to the media as ministers and civil servants were worried about the underlying messages. While I have a copy of the data, I do not have the costs for this particular project, but it would be equivalent to a standard public survey of 1000 participants spread across the UK.

Another activity that did make the headlines, but not in any great way, was the Alesha Dixon photospread run in 2008. It produced a series of gorgeous photos, but hardly any media outlets picked up on it (if memory serves only a couple of online editions of tabloid papers ran it). Which again represents a lot of money spent for very little return. [This is not a criticism of Ms Dixon who showed a genuine commitment to a campaign on a topic very few celebrities will be associated with]

It is not unusual within mainstream research or any public engagement activity for ideas to change, for messages to occasionally fail, or for problems to arise. But in relation to the cost of these campaigns – particularly when front line services are being cut – this is a worry. Not least when you add it to the fees for the more online activities, surveys run and time lost while rebidding for contracts.

Part of the problem of messaging being ineffective is the timing of them – Valentine’s Day, for example, is such a busy period to get any media pickup. But it’s also not a particularly good time to run public sexual health messaging – a better time would be around Christmas/New Year when people are more likely to have unprotected sex.

Policy/public health education and the role of the PR Company
By far the biggest problem around evidence-based approaches to public messaging is related to PR companies. In 2008 the Telegraph reported the government were spending approximately £1million per week on polls and focus groups and it may be the figure is far higher if you factor in consultations, and other public facing activity such as websites run by different government departments.

This issue has not really been fully explored and I think a canny journalists might be able to identify a far larger spend than already suggested.

These surveys and focus groups are not run to identify people’s key problems or needs, nor to improve services or our wellbeing. Instead they are run to collect information that will be used to inform media activity. Because nowadays most journalists won’t cover stories unless they can pin them to a survey or similar.

This wastes time and money on a number of levels. It firstly overlooks existing evidence on health, education or business that may well be useful to help us understand or deal with an issue. Peer reviewed research is rarely consulted or used to underpin such activity. Instead we see a number of leading questions used to get answers that in turn will generate headlines and discussions points for radio. Which can work if you have a spokesperson allied to a campaign that can translate that information into accurate and contemporary advice. But this is sadly not often the case given the use of PR companies of spokespeople who may not be the best qualified within an area to interpret and share information.

Research to inform public health is led by PR companies, not academics/practitioners
Over the years there has been a shift within public health campaigns where instead of being informed by key academics/practitioners about current evidence of best practice there is now the approach that the PR Company comes up with the idea for an activity as well as being responsible for promoting it.

A key example, and one that led me to resign from supporting the Department of Health’s sexual and reproductive campaign, came from the new PR agency they appointed. They had heard about some research covered in the Daily Mail where researchers counted the number of mentions of alcohol in the media. They suggested the same approach be used, but focusing on condoms.

Their recommendation was for someone (an academic) to observe the media over an unspecified period, and from that they could indicate how little condoms were mentioned in the media, and flag this up as a problem. They also incorrectly claimed no similar research had ever been conducted on this before (because they had not found any in searches they had undertaken).

Civil servants at the Department of Health seemed impressed with this idea. My opposition to it ran as follows. Such an activity if carried out correctly is very time consuming and costly. It would require very clear parameters around what media would be studied over what period. Given that we already know condoms are not mentioned much within mainstream media there is probably little point in doing such an in depth activity. But given we also know that integrating safer sex messages into mainstream media works see here and here and here and here, perhaps using that knowledge might allow us to bypass the research and focus instead on working directly with journalists – particularly in television where often plot lines in soap operas can be requested to focus on core issues (e.g. sexuality, bullying, teenage pregnancy). My advice was ignored.

On 20 February the Department of Health announced they had commissioned research that looked at media coverage of condoms in a report called ‘Mis Selling Sex’. The report still has not been publicly launched, and there is no clear information on who did the analysis, how it was conducted, and how much the activity cost. Moreover, there is no clear information on how the findings would be implemented outside of talking to television companies, which, as we already have seen, could have been done without having to do a full-scale study.

It is sadly a common problem within health research where people repeat studies, but in the case of a government department being advised they did not need to do this research – and could have used their money elsewhere – it is worrying such advice was ignored. If we do not see particular changes within mainstream media, this work will have been wasted. And even if we do see such messages in media they need to be sustained and supported.

What did I learn from my time in the field?
It would be wrong of me to imply those working on various government health campaigns are not doing their best or lack good intentions. My experience of working with ministers, civil servants and the PR companies behind the campaigns suggested a lot of well meaning people. There were also a few practitioners like me who volunteered our time and skills to inform campaigns and improve sexual health.

However, high staff turnover, fear of the response of the Daily Mail, a reliance on ‘desk based’ research and the focus towards ‘policy based evidence making’ rather than ‘evidence based policy making’ meant many good ideas were blocked, and weaker activities green lit.

Given sexual and reproductive health services are so underfunded, and yet given our equally worrying rising STI rates, it is vital any activity we undertake is cost effective, appropriate, built on evidence and evaluated. And that it directs people to the services they need. Spending money on campaigns that do not achieve this means people won’t go for help and while services continue to struggle with lack of funding.

I wonder how much better we may have done if money simply had been spent on improving services, and telling people where they could find them?

As mentioned I cannot speak for the rest of the activities run in different government departments but it is my belief that money and time has been wasted elsewhere. It is also my belief that politicians and civil servants will continue to struggle after the election because they are not supported by the public or by scientists/practitioners to use evidence to inform policies and services.

While we debate science and how important it is, we need to be aware of the real life problems encountered on the ground that means very often poor practice is allowed to continue because nobody is adequately checking what is being done, and few practitioners volunteer to ensure good services can be offered.

Please, while you’re campaigning for science, think about offering your services and scrutiny to ensure we can stop wasting time and money in the name of government backed health research and education.

The latest UK Durex Sex Survey was launched this weekend, and it’s clearly pinned around topical media favourites of cheating, sexting and promiscuity. Among other things the study claims British people have sex four to five times a week, and paints a picture of UK residents where 1/3 would have sex with anyone for £1 million and 1/5 of us fantasise about our exes during sex.

Examples of the media treatment of this story include:
Third of us would have sex with anyone for £1m (and 5% just for World Cup tickets) – The Sun
Sex survey: third of Britons ‘would sleep with a stranger for £1 million’ – The Telegraph

The trouble is these findings don’t fit with the approaches or outcomes of reliable academic studies. The figure of sexual activity happening four or five times a week is massively higher than reliable studies show (around 6 times a month). While this may be an indicator of bias in the survey (and respondents trying to give impressive answers), it is problematic as it continues to equate ‘good’ sex with quantity and imply that ‘normal’ sexual behaviour is several times per week. This is a staple part of contemporary self help and media coverage on sex and makes people who’re not doing this feel inadequate.

Sex surveys conducted in independent academic research build on existing data and do not present sex in judgemental ways – so a focus on ‘promiscuity’ or ‘cheating’ as appears in the current Durex survey is a big no-no in accurate survey design. Not least because it discourages many people from answering honestly and potentially could distress participants.

The claim that 1/3 of us might sleep with a stranger for £1 million is also misleading as it asks people to say what they might do, not what they have done. The subtext of sex with a stranger in exchange for cash also taps into media prudery, so allows for coverage with a judgemental subtext. The mainstream media don’t tend to look favourably on either sex with strangers or sex for cash – and particularly despise both together.

All of which begs ethical questions about a sex survey that is designed to promote a product to encourage safer sex, but actually is suggesting sex for money or sex with strangers or thinking about someone other than your partner during intercourse is problematic.

There are limitations with the questions asked, design of the survey questions, participants included, and promotion of the survey’s outcomes; which makes it an unreliable indicator of our sexual behaviour and attitudes.

Some of the questions have been made available online (see Sun link above). Here are some of the more problematic ones:

Question 1 asks ‘How many sexual partners have you had?’ but it doesn’t give any parameters so it’s unclear if participants are being asked ever, or during past year or some other timescale. It also doesn’t define what ‘sexual’ means so some people may only include encounters that included penetrative sex, others might include experiences where oral sex was enjoyed but no penetration. From this you can’t really be sure what people are talking about. This question is used in news coverage to identify ‘promiscuous’ sexual behaviour, which does not happen in reliable sex research.

Question 3 asks the double question of ‘Where and when are you most likely to cheat on a partner?’ and gives the following breakdown:
On holiday 9.7%
Night out 12.9%
Office party 1.9%
Business trip 2.5%
If I met a hot stranger 6.2%
Do it all the time 1.7%

It says 65% would never cheat but it does not make clear how this question was phrased (so it may have been very leading and make people feel they had to answer in a socially desirable way). Strangely although this is reported as ‘where and when’ someone would cheat it actually only asks where they’re most likely to cheat, and doesn’t really capture whether this is based on people speculating where temptation might arise, or where they’ve actually cheated on a partner.

Question 4 asks ‘Could you be bought for sex and if so, for how much?’ It then lists the different price options for people to select:
No way 43.5%
A drink 3.4%
Dinner 3.1%
A pair of designer shoes 3.3%
£100 5.5%
£1000 10.8%
£25000 14.1%
£100000 14.9%
£1 million 29.7%
My mortgage paid off 13.1%
A year’s rent on my house/flat 9.1%
World cup tickets 5.4%
I’d do it for free 13.2%

You can see from the phrasing of the question that participants may well not take this seriously, but it is obviously being prepared for the media market as whatever the main choices selected this could tap into the judgemental approach the media takes towards paid for sex. PR companies often write their press releases at the same time they design their surveys, so here you can already see the ‘shocking’ finding taking shape that will slip into the press release once the data comes back.

Question 8 asks ‘Do you own or have you tried any of the following?’
Vibrator 53.2%
Pleasure-enhancing condoms 46.2%
Lubricants 67.2%
Handcuffs 38%
Sex doll 1.4%
Nipple clamps 5.3%
Whips/spanking paddles 11.7%
Visited a strip club 22.2%
Visited a sex club 7.2%
Paid for sex 5.3%
Had a sex buddy 29.6%
None of the above 7.1%
None of the above but would like to try 7.2%

Aside from being a badly worded question that is asking two questions in one, there is no breakdown of gender, age or sexuality here which might illuminate this data further. There’s no clue with the last question which of the above they want to try, and many of the positive answers regarding use of lubricant may be more indicative of respondents replying to a survey by a condom manufacturer than might be found in the general public. There’s no indication whether people responding to this question include these items as part of their sexual practices, or tried them once and won’t be bothering again. ‘Sex’ is defined here as a range of activities which many do enjoy but which do not encompass the range of sexual experiences people might share. Most of these are paid for products or activities which again favour the media’s treatment of sex, basing it around things you can buy to enhance your sex life.

Question 10 asks ‘What do you count as cheating on a partner?’
Bottom pinching 20.4%
Texting 22.6%
Snogging 75.6%
Going out for a drink 23.4%
Oral sex 71%
Penetrative sex 78.1%
We have an open relationship 4.8%

This suggests those responding had very clear views that anything other than kissing someone else is cheating. This contrasts with some of the answers given in question 8, and particularly with the response to question 4. Making the survey is a curious mix of liberal and conservative views on sex, which will influence participant responses.

In a reliable sex survey questions should not lead participants but should form a comprehensive narrative so each answer compliments the next one and the survey does not contradict itself. Each question should be clear and researchers should have an awareness of how different questions will be used individually and together in analysis.

In this current survey it seems like a range of unrelated questions with potentially sensationalist outcomes are put together in no particular order and with no real sense of what is being measured or what portrait of UK sexual behaviour is being captured.

Sadly this is a standard approach to poor survey design and is a further indicator of why such findings should not inform our sexual lives.

You can read my previous criticisms of past Durex surveys here
Concerns about the Durex Global Sex Survey
Durex Global Sex Survey – back once again with the international sex contest
Salami Slicing Sex Survey Data
Buy our sex products. Oops, sorry, I mean check out our International Sex Survey

Since this is a commercial venture and clearly not designed to truly represent our sex lives, is there any reason to get upset about it? Yes, because the Durex surveys are pretty much the main port of call to any journalist writing a sex feature. They use the data to underpin surveys with those obligatory sex statistics required by editors. This in turn influences how the public understand sex and relationships.

Durex is currently asking sex educators/researchers like me to share their ideas about sex/relationships. The company is paying £150 for an hour of a professional’s time as part of their internal product development programme. Given the potential barriers to our sex lives and our profession as educators/researchers posed by misleading promotional surveys I’d advise sexual health professionals to refuse to work with the company. That is until Durex decides to either drop their survey in its current promotional format, or agrees to revising survey so it is ethical, accurate and actually tells us something about our sex lives.

* With thanks to Ed Yong from Not Exactly Rocket Science for this clever caption for today’s blog, (in case you don’t get the joke it’s based on a previous marketing slogan for condoms ‘ribbed for her pleasure’).

Staff in the Department of Psychology at McGill University, Canada are conducting an online study exploring male body image and sexuality.

The research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and involves completing a survey that asks about men’s attitudes towards their body. Male participants are welcome to participate and the study is open to people in Canada and other countries.

The research has full ethics approval.

You can find out more and join in the research here

If you have any specific questions about the study you can contact the researchers via the link above.

Last November you may remember drug company Boehringer Ingelheim reported at a conference on their trials of a drug called Flibanserin, aimed at treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women. In lay terms HSDD means a lack of sexual desire, sometimes also described as a lack of libido.

The trials did not indicate strong findings individually, but with combined data from different country sites it suggested a women who took the drug reported 0.7 more sexually satisfying sexual experience per month as compared with placebo. You can read a summary of the history of Flibanserin, information about the trials, details of how the drug company have tried to involve practitioners and appraisals of the drug and trials here.

While aspects of the drugs effectiveness and safety long term are still being investigated, and while approvals are being sought from the FDA and EMEA the drug company appear to be continuing efforts actively promote the concept of HSDD.

Late last week the company released findings from a survey of women with low desire and associated distress at a women’s sexual health conference. Dubbed the DESIRE study (Desire and its Effects on female Sexuality Including Relationships) it reported on 65,129 women ages 18-88 from five European countries. Participants completed a computerised Decreased Sexual Desire Screener (DSDS) a five-question diagnostic tool which is apparently designed to assist “non-expert clinicians in the clinical diagnosis of generalized, acquired Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD)”. 7,542 (11.5% of original sample) answered “yes” to all four questions and 5,098 (8% original sample) women further chose to participate in the in-depth survey.

It’s not clear what participants were asked in the survey, nor whether these women were part of the wider Flibanserin trials. But we can see the DSDS screening tool, which asks five questions to which you should answer yes or no:

- In the past, was your level of sexual desire/interest good and satisfying to you?
- Has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?
- Are you bothered by your decreased level of sexual desire/interest?
- Would you like your level of sexual desire/interest to increase?

In a fifth Yes or No question, women are asked to note any factors from the following list they feel may be contributing to a loss of sexual desire or interest.
- Medications, drugs or alcohol you are currently taking
- Pregnancy, recent childbirth, menopausal symptoms
- Other sexual issues you may be having (pain, decreased arousal or
orgasm)
- Your partner’s sexual problems
- Dissatisfaction with your relationship or partner
- Stress or fatigue

If you say ‘yes’ to questions 1 to 4 and ‘no’ to all the questions in number five you can be classified as having HSDD.

However, let’s go back and look at this study again. Firstly the title of it – DESIRE. It’s unclear if this is how it was introduced to participants, but it is worth noting that using potentially coercive titles in study acronyms is ethically frowned upon in research. Regardless of whether participants were told this was the name of the study, the branding of the research as ‘DESIRE’ is certainly making a point and one might add is part of an overall marketing strategy.

Moving on to look at questions 1-4 again. They don’t contain clear parameters so ‘in the past’ could mean anything from ever in your life to the last few weeks or months.

They’re also vague ‘has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?’ A decrease compared to what? How I’ve felt over the course of my life? How I feel now as compared to when I met my partner? How I feel with my current partner compared to how I felt with a previous lover?

See also ‘are you bothered’. Well, maybe I’m bothered because my partner bugs me I don’t seem to want sex enough. Or maybe my partner’s great and never pressurises me but I still feel inadequate. Perhaps I feel bothered about a lack of desire not because I don’t feel any, but because I’m not in a relationship currently. Or maybe I’ve lost desire for reasons I understand, it does bother me, but I also know that the situation may change or I can do something to solve the issue. Being ‘bothered’ can mean very different things to different people at different times in their relationship.

The questions are also leading. ‘Would you like your level of desire/interest to increase?’ Well most of us would probably say yes. But even if we did say this, does it really tell us much. If I say I don’t want my levels of desire to increase it may not also tell you that I would like the opportunities to explore pleasure to be more forthcoming. Or perhaps I’d like more opportunities to have the time to spend on intimacy.

If you’re setting up a diagnostic you need to be really clear about what it is you’re asking people to measure their experiences/behaviour against. Otherwise it becomes all too easy for people who’re probably not that troubled by something to be classed as someone who is in difficulty.

Let’s not lose sight of what are the main causes of desire problems in women – see how many of these you consider to be a ‘medical’ condition:
* Concerns over body image
* A lack of sex education or knowledge how your body works
* Not knowing what turns you on, or the inability to share what does turn you on with a partner
* Psychological or physical health problems (including sexually transmitted infections)
* Past or present sexual abuse or domestic violence
* A partner who has a sexual problem
* A partner who does not know how to turn you on effectively
* Relationship difficulties including arguments or jealousy
* Being overworked and lacking support from family and/or partner
* Having a young family (particularly if there’s little support provided to care for them)
* Concerns over fertility, problems with contraception use
* Lack of privacy to relax enough for sex
* Poverty and related issues of limited access to healthcare
* Focusing on vaginal sex instead of wider sexual activities, particularly clitoral stimulation

Aside from the DESIRE study a ‘patient registry’ will now be collating data on women classified as having HSDD who will be followed up long term. This will be supported by an ‘unlimited grant from Boehringer Ingelheim’ (see press release above).

What’s interesting about the reports on the DESIRE study and launch of the patient registry is there is no mention on the press release about Boehringer Ingelheim’s development of medication specifically to treat HSDD. This is important if you need to put both their investment in this study and the registry in context.

Sadly the media covered this story uncritically and without asking key questions about it. Not least about the funding of the research, registry and additional studies being conducted on medications to ‘treat’ female desire disorders.

Instead we heard coverage that women with a lack of desire suffer from emotional distress, in reports that indicated this was a widespread crisis that needed immediate attention.

Now many women do report dissatisfaction with sex, but that does not mean they are dysfunctional, nor does it mean they are always distressed. Problems around desire affect women and men, gay and straight, partnered or single. And they can be due to a variety of often interrelated factors – physical, psychological and social.

What we are currently seeing is a shift towards setting up a lack of desire as a widespread, distressing, clinical condition that requires drug treatment as a first port of call.

There are questions to be asked about why a drug company would invest in surveys and patient registers to indicate there is a disorder, while at the same time creating medication to treat this condition.

[Non UK readers may be wondering what the 'am I bovvered?' phrase in this title refers to. It's a catchphrase of a character, surly teenager Lauren Cooper, in UK comedy programme The Catherine Tate show, shown in the picture at start of this blog]

Over the past few weeks I’ve been hearing about GMTV’s LK Today show’s forthcoming ‘sex week’, a series of morning programmes aimed at a mainly female audience to be run in the week before Valentines day.

It’s been an invaluable opportunity to observe how ‘sex’ is understood and constructed by programme makers, and how television journalists interact with sex educators, researchers and health practitioners. And ultimately what is chosen to count as content or ‘evidence’ for a programme.

It begins with a survey …
During the introduction to hearing about the forthcoming series I was told the programmes were going to be pinned around a ‘sex survey’. This is a predictable approach used by TV companies to create content and drive publicity. Fine if said surveys were well designed, reliable or valid, but usually they aren’t. Unsurprisingly the planned version of the GMTV sex survey wasn’t very good, but interestingly the programme makers were willing to accept feedback even if the final version wasn’t all that accurate.

The problem with using surveys to underpin programmes is they’re usually thrown together without much reflection by staff with no knowledge of survey design or much of an awareness of sex. Meaning results are either misleading or reinforce stereotypes. There is no real sense that researchers/practitioners like myself and others already know about such materials and can easily translate it into television-ready formats which we’re happy to offer if we’re approached during the planning phase of programme making.

TV sex programmes are led by two things – a ‘news’ agenda and the opinions of the producer – and it’s hard to argue with either
We all know that the media, less like education or research, is closely directed by a news agenda. The creation of GMTV’s ‘sex week’ was no exception, so during preparations for the programme it seemed production staff were keen to find sex addicts and those who’d been cheated on, presumably to fit stories tagged around celebrity sex addicts and cheaters currently in the headlines.

This does two things. It fits sex into a fairly narrow framework, but also restricts discussions towards gossip rather than actual evidence. Now undoubtedly with celebrity sex scandals there will be public interest and opinion. But this won’t help inform relationships unless we can move away from the celebrity angle and focus on the issues at hand. Even then we’d need the ability to do so accurately. So in the case of ‘sex addiction’ we’d need to take a completely different stance than that offered by a standard production angle – that sex addiction is real, here’s a celebrity example, and here’s a ‘real life’ case study to further illustrate the problem. Instead we’d need to look at how sex addiction isn’t really the problem made out by the media, who is promoting the ‘sex addiction’ agenda, and what people really need to worry about in relation to relationships – and how to solve relationship problems without medicalising behaviour.

In phone conversations I had with staff working on ‘sex week’ I was asked if I could help them find a sex addict, someone who was celibate, someone who had an STI, and recommend other experts who could join in panel discussions about sex and relationships. While I was happy to recommend a number of colleagues who I rate (and know would do a great job in talking confidently about sex and relationships to the viewers) obviously I couldn’t recommend case studies (it’s unethical to refer someone you meet in education/research to journalists).

It is unclear exactly what will feature within ‘sex week’ but if it follows the format being worked on over the past few weeks ‘sex’ will be problematised. This can be seen in the way GMTV framed sex in their introduction to their sex survey: “Valentine’s Day is upon us, but are you fed up with your sex life? Is your partner inattentive and unadventurous? Or was the last sexual compulsion you experienced many, many moons ago? Maybe you’re lucky enough to enjoy a passionate relationship with your partner. Whatever you’re getting up to between the sheets, share your sex stories and thoughts with us in our sex survey”. Through to focusing on people who do it too much (addicts) or with the wrong people (cheaters) or those who aren’t doing it enough (celibates).

Sex programmes on television will consistently fail to reach their potential if…
- The focus of any programming is defined and limited by top down approaches where producers set agendas and instruct junior staff to find experts, ‘statistics’ and case studies to support the beliefs and values of the producer. In the case of GMTVs sex week the staff I talked to were charming but were seeking answers to questions set by their producer (who of course didn’t bother speaking directly to any experts). As a result you’ve a constant interrupted dialogue where a producer sets an agenda, a junior has to find someone who’ll support this, and anyone who has a different view will be ignored. No programme will work if you’ve got junior staff negotiating with numerous key players but no authority to green light their inclusion and pressure from an editor to find tame contributors.

- Where ‘news’ (aka ‘gossip’) underpins all stories. Particularly when directly pinned on celebrity cases (with the emphasis on speculating about the celeb not wider issues). Ethically it is inappropriate for practitioners to judge celebrities or any case study and pinning stories so closely to celebrity cases will make it difficult for any ethical practitioner to contribute.

- Where poorly designed surveys are conducted as part of a programme but don’t inform it due to quality issues (or because the survey is conducted to generate publicity not content).

- Where searches for scientific evidence to inform a programme are only carried out on google and ‘evidence’ is understood in terms of some statistics to help stack up a story. A particular problem when staff are pressed for time, don’t understand evidence, and probably aren’t aware that there is a wider body of extensive information about sex they could be drawing on.

- When experts are used to inform content but where staff struggle to identify who is adequately qualified to contribute.

- Journalists (and particularly senior production staff) lack basic sex education so are unable to understand core critical issues about sex. Meaning the ‘sex week’ staff were unaware of any critical discussions of ‘sex addiction’ – they assumed it was real and accepted as a medical condition until told otherwise, and even then continued to work with it as a key contemporary sex issue. There was also the problem of staff accepting ideas that should seem nonsensical – for example one researcher called me asking if I could confirm whether celibacy was harmful to your health since one expert they’d talked to told them if you don’t have sex it could cause physical harm. As with many media encounters a large part of my discussions with staff for ‘sex week’ was about basic sex education (ie how sex won’t get rid of wrinkles or how not having sex won’t harm your body, and that celibacy and asexuality are not the same thing). No reputable sex educator will object to providing this service, but it demonstrates how programmes can’t be made accurately if staff are working from a position of ignorance and misinformation to begin with.

All of which raises serious ethical and practical dilemmas for anyone thinking about being involved in TV sex programmes
Reputable sex educators are always happy to give time to create accurate sex coverage for television. Sadly the approach taken by many production teams often creates barriers for those wanting to be involved. There is the general assumption that you will be willing to provide background information for free, very often to also contribute your time to the show/series for nothing, and the appearance on television is a privilege so you must unquestioningly fit in with the show’s agenda.

Given that many ‘sexperts’ working within the media do so as a means to advertise their products and services they’ll obviously say whatever’s asked for to get their time on television. However, genuine experts won’t be motivated in the same way. We will want to share accurate, sex positive information in an engaging way, not repeat what the producer wants to hear. For many of us schedules need reorganising if we’re going to be on TV (for ‘sex week’ we were asked to set aside two days for filming). That means patients, clients, colleagues and students timetables will also need restructuring. This is only worth it if you’re actually going to be able to share sex positive information.

Once you become aware there’s a show in development you want it to be as accurate as possible – regardless of whether you appear on the final edit. However, that in turn raises issues of how much you should be involved given you can provide lots of time and effort for nothing, have no record of your contribution, and ultimately not see any of your efforts inform the programming. (Which is sadly the case with ‘sex week’ where contributors including myself who’d been booked to appear were told at the last minute we weren’t needed as they’d be sticking with their resident TV doc and sexpert).

Because of these issues the end result of most TV sex shows currently means sex is always constructed in particular ways – usually limited, negative, problem-based with judgemental case studies pinned on celebrities. Expertise may well have been consulted, but may well not be understood or applied. And contributors may not end up on any programming leading to time being wasted and a lot of lost opportunities and bad feeling created.

Very often journalists complain they can’t put together decent programmes because they are up against limits of time or resources. Yet this case study and countless others like it indicate that’s just not true. There’s stacks of evidence, loads of qualified people who can talk about it in engaging ways, and a lot to be said that’s currently not talked about. The key problem is producers make specific decisions to frame sex and ‘sexpertise’ in particular ways. Meaning you get poor to average sex coverage when you could have had GREAT sex.

The tracking of GMTV’s sex week from programme outline to broadcast allows us to think about how sex programmes are constructed for mainstream prime time audiences. You’ve had the background from me, but you can explore this further by watching the programmes (run on ITV1 every morning this week from 9am GMT)

What will they discuss? Consider what they may have talked about and reflect on how much of the programme is linked to their sex survey (the results of which can be found here). You can also question what other evidence is used to underpin programme (and where might that have come from) and what other evidence could have been used. How much of ‘sex week’ will frame sex in a language of hormones, evolution, body language, and gender stereotypes (and how much of that coverage seems accurate or understood). You may want to reflect on who is and isn’t included in discussions (for example in terms of ability, age, ethnicity or sexuality) and how much of the series will be pinned around product placement (lingerie, sex toys etc). Finally you may want to consider how much of the series provides actionable information people can put into practice (rather than instructions on what we should be doing sexually).

As a sex educator my wish is always that quality sex information is provided to the public, so if GMTV manage to do this during ‘sex week’ then this is good news. My anxiety is the programmes won’t be as good as they could be (for reasons set out above) and this is common to most television shows about sex/relationships.

The questions remain about how we address this problem? Practitioners are keen to get involved and share good information but are restricted by many practical and financial barriers set up by television companies. Television companies are keen to continue to include sex content but are unwilling to improve content, particularly because they need to talk about sex but fear losing advertising revenue or viewing figures.

Perhaps the key to the puzzle is not to be found with journalists or practitioners, but lies with the public who can demand better programming (presuming they’re aware what’s currently on offer is inadequate). After all, no matter how eager or well meaning us practitioners can be, or how much evidence we can share, this is never going to be possible unless producers have a reason to provide it. If viewers want this – or if viewers will switch off if it’s not provided – then maybe our sex programming will get better.

Yesterday I wrote about the case of UK morning television show GMTV who’d got into hot water after hosting a biased survey about breastfeeding that had upset mums a lot. It resulted in the programme being publicly criticised for their actions.

I mentioned how I’d been approached by GMTV about a planned series on sex, which they wanted to base on a sex survey. I agreed in principle to take part, with the proviso I had some input to the survey. They sent me their draft questions and I gave feedback. I’ve not heard anything back from them (not even an acknowledgement they received my message), but looking at their sex survey (which is now live on their site) it seems they have listened to the feedback I provided.

Their original list of questions wasn’t too bad, although as with any survey they required reflection and change. For example they planned to ask ‘do you have a partner?’, but this is often misleading and folk who are either dating or married assume it doesn’t apply to them. So a better term (which I recommended) is ‘are you in a relationship?’ They also wanted to find out ‘is your sex life good’ which I suggested they change as ‘good’ is a difficult concept to measure (my standards for ‘good’ may be much more stringent than yours). Instead I recommended ‘how satisfied are you with your relationship?’ (and added asking about partner satisfaction was equally important). I recommended they drop questions that are difficult to reliably measure through a survey (like ‘how often do you think about sex?’) along with questions relating to ‘meeting a stranger online for sex’ (which seemed at odds with the rest of the questions and judgemental).

Based on their suggestions my rewrite looked something like this – aimed to be very basic and to get some general data that could be compared with existing studies and used as a talking point for their programme.

- Demographics: age, gender, location (I usually don’t start a survey like this as demographics are quite threatening, but given the rest of the questions were sensitive this wasn’t a bad place to begin).
- Are you in a relationship? If yes, how long have you been together?
- Are you happy with your sex life?
- Is sex important to your relationship?
- What things help you enjoy sex? (I suggested this might remain open ended or give multiple choices such as communication, willingness to explore new things, time to spend together, trusting each other)
- What are the main barriers to enjoying sex? (worries about body image, confidence issues, lack of partner support, relationship problems, health problems, fertility worries, tiredness, lack of privacy/kids in
the way, sleeping in separate beds)
- Do you have any questions about sex you would like us to answer? (open ended)

Looking at their live survey it seems many of these pointers have been taken on board. These include:

6. Are you happy with your sex life? Yes/No
7. Do you think your partner is happy with your sex life? Yes/No
8. Is sex important to your relationship? Yes/No

9. What would help you enjoy sex more?
Good communication
Willingness to explore new things
Spending time together
Trusting each other
I’m happy with our sex life

11. What prevents you having more sex?
Kids
Tiredness
Poor body image
Health problems
Partner’s sexual difficulties
Relationship problems
Sleeping in separate beds
I’m happy with how often we have sex

12. What things enhance sex for you?
Time together
Good communication
Confidence
Help around the house / childcare

13. Do you still find your partner attractive? Yes/No

If I were doing this study myself I’d have more space to talk about positive things that enhance sex and I’d combine questions 9 and 12. I’d allow more scope for participants to share what does/doesn’t work for them and I’d focus on relationships and intimacy as much as sex. However, the inclusion of factors that get in the way of desire which are very practical for most women (lack of time/privacy due to kids being around, body image etc) is important and will allow for a good discussion for the programme.

However, there are still major problems with the survey and the first one you spot on the welcome page which says “Valentine’s Day is upon us, but are you fed up with your sex life? Is your partner inattentive and unadventurous? Or was the last sexual compulsion you experienced many, many moons ago? Maybe you’re lucky enough to enjoy a passionate relationship with your partner. Whatever you’re getting up to between the sheets, share your sex stories and thoughts with us in our sex survey”.

Yes, it’s in media speak, but there are problems here around the aim of the study – is it about Valentine’s day or sex? It’s leading from the outset with the first statement asking whether people are fed up, or if their partner is inattentive or unadventurous, or sex is something that’s not happened for years. It’s hideously sex negative and likely to invite people who’re either having problems with their sex lives or want to prove they’re super sexual. It’s very bad practice to begin a sex survey with statements like this and no clear aims, but it’s another example of how little attention people give to even basic things like the way you begin your survey and invite participation. Sadly, this opening to the survey suggests it is likely to be as problematic and biased as the previously flawed one on breastfeeding.

At the close of the survey there are suddenly several questions about porn and paying for sex, which don’t really fit with the rest of the questions asked:

14. Do you use pornography? Yes/No
15. Does your partner use pornography? Yes/No
16. Would you ever pay for sex? Yes/No
This question is optional.

These are flawed questions because it’s unclear what does ‘use’ pornography mean? ‘Use’ as in something to turn you on during sex, or before sex with a partner? ‘Use’ to give you ideas for sex? ‘Use’ for masturbation on your own?

Not only do these questions not measure porn ‘use’ (because of a lack of explanation in the questions) but they also don’t tell us useful information like whether women are happy or not about porn or their partner looking at it. It’s almost as though this was tagged on at the end because porn might come up as part of the planned series on sex so there had to be some data on it. Because there wasn’t any thought about this (or using existing survey questions on porn, which again there are loads of) these are just wasted questions.

The buying sex one is also not clear in terms of why it’s being asked (on a reputable survey you’d always ask why you want someone to tell you something). Making the question optional is good, but it’s still not going to tell us anything more than whether people think they might consider buying sex, not whether they have and what their attitudes to paying for sex are. Because this question is placed above asking people for their name and a daytime contact number it makes the porn/paying for sex questions even more threatening – and less likely to be answered.

It’s a shame the introduction to the questionnaire and closing questions are so flawed as the questions in between aren’t too bad. You can easily see, however, that by not taking care throughout the research process, that you can unduly influence and potentially scupper an otherwise good piece of work.

As mentioned in yesterday’s blog, for many journalists (and for most people who’re novice survey designers) it’s common to think if you throw down a few questions on the back of an envelope your survey is good to go. I think from looking over this current survey that there’s an additional problem I often encounter when teaching survey design. Which is folk grasp they need feedback, but assume if they get a little bit then that’s the green light to run with a piece of work.

In fact, to make a good survey (and this applies whatever it is for) you need to find out whether other surveys already exist on the topic you’re interested in. Use or adapt them for your own study. Get feedback on them from colleagues. Amend the questionnaire accordingly. Pilot on a representative subsample. Amend as needed. Then proceed with your work.

This can be more time consuming than bunging down a few questions, but if you liaise with an expert it shouldn’t take long. And it means what you do produce is reliable and useful and far less likely to risk criticism or non completion.

I’m glad to see GMTV appear to have taken feedback on board, although sad to see that by not fully understanding how surveys work that errors in their existing sex survey means it’s not very reliable. Of course they will be able to use it to inform discussions, but the outcomes they get may not be all that representative and thus conversations may be skewed and not deliver what viewers really need.

After writing yesterday several journalists emailed me and asked what my tips were for them to create good surveys for use in features or programmes. I’d recommend following the steps for good survey design outlined above and also:
- get experts to help (they can tap into questionnaires quicker than you can)
- don’t be afraid to use existing measures
- don’t base programmes/features on a survey you’ve designed without going through steps outlined above (if you don’t have time commission someone to do this for you)
- may be better to use the findings from another survey as a talking point
- don’t make the mistake of seeing a survey as quick and easy
- if you get help and feedback then have a dialogue about it (don’t assume feedback equals a green light to proceed unless specifically stated)

People like myself should be willing to work more closely with journalists to improve practice around surveys – which might include training on how surveys work or survey design/analysis, or assistance with writing and disseminating surveys. I see it as a duty of care to make existing measures more accessible and to help journalists put together good quality surveys.

However, there is a problem around offering such a service. Who pays for it? Is it something journalists will expect for free? Is it part of wider public engagement duties we ought to be providing? If so do our institutions cover that cost or the media outlet we’re working with? What do we do if our advice isn’t heeded? How much time should we give to such ventures? And how do we measure ’success’?

For example I managed to get some questions changed from the original GMTV list. Or so it seems. I’ve had no further contact with them to confirm this (I can only go by what they originally sent, what I suggested, and seeing my suggested changed questions now appear on their website). So you could judge that a success. However, responding took time and you have to ask yourself is it worth providing such feedback if you’ve no guarantee the overall quality of a survey would be good (or represent the standards you’d expect in your usual practice). Is it worth doing if you get no feedback whatsoever? Or with no guarantees you’d be able to appear on television (or in print) to talk about the survey?

I’d really be interested to hear from journalists or health/social scientists/practitioners about this topic so please email me your thoughts.

Journalists – I’d love to know if you are interested in getting training on using/understanding surveys, or feedback on creating individual surveys well as the need arises. What kind of support (if any) are you bothered about?

Researchers/practitioners – I’m keen to hear what your experiences in dealing with the media around research have been. Do you think we should do more to encourage collaborative working or training? If not, why not? If so, how might this relationship be encouraged to avoid exploitation and overcome poor practice?

And to everyone reading, is it right to expose bad research in the way I’ve done in yesterday or today’s blog? Or best to keep discussions about research private?

I’ll feed back any comments in a future blog.

Recently a UK morning television show hosted an online poll about breastfeeding. Not a problem you might think. Breastfeeding is an important and topical issue and one that often creates anxiety for mothers. So finding out what women’s experiences are of breastfeeding is important.

However, if you are going to do this you also need to ask questions in a fair and unambiguous way. That’s just basic good survey design. If you ask questions in a leading, biased or confused way you’ll either find people won’t respond to you, or those who do won’t be representative so any resulting data is meaningless.

Unfortunately it seems GMTV hadn’t gone to the ‘survey 101’ class and posted a poll that included questions like:

“Do you think breasts should not be displayed in public for any reason?”
“Do you think women should use discretion when breastfeeding?”
“Do you think it’s a woman’s right to breastfeed in public?”

It also apparently asked whether it was “wrong” to breastfeed a child over 12 months.

These questions are a problem because they’re leading and negative. If you wanted to find out women’s views and experiences of breastfeeding (good and bad) you could ask them about where they feed, or whether they’ve encountered support or barriers when feeding at home or in public. You might ask them who gave them advice about breastfeeding and whether that was helpful (and if not why not), and focus on key issues like family/partner support.

You’d want to be sure anything you asked delivered a clear answer. For example for the question ‘is it wrong to breastfeed a child aged over 12 months’ someone might answer yes but meaning they felt it was wrong to feed an older child in public, but were not averse to the child being fed at home. Or they might answer yes to the question not believing it’s ‘wrong’ to feed a child over 12 months in public, just that they would feel uncomfortable doing so. Or their understanding of ‘wrong’ related to exclusively breastfeeding a 12 month old (although they might be fine with occasional feeds to a little one). With vaguely worded yet judgemental questions you can never be sure what someone’s responding to.

That’s not to say you can’t ask provocative questions, but you would do it in a way that was clear that was your aim. So you could say ‘some people believe the time to stop breast feeding is when baby is 12 months old?’ and ask people to agree or disagree with that statement. It is suggesting there’s a cut off time for feeding, but not that feeding or not over a particular age band is right or wrong.

Indeed good quality surveys are characterised by the fact that they can ask sensitive questions but in a way that does not suggest blame or moralising. Good social research is about finding out about peoples views, not imposing views on them or making them feel their beliefs are faulty.

Usually it’s just geeky social science types like me who get in a flap when dubious surveys hit the media, but on this occasion members of the website Mumsnet also noticed what was going on. As you can see from the linked thread members of the site were upset about the wording of the questions which they felt devalued breastfeeding and mothers who chose to do it. The discussion also alleged the reason for the dubiously worded survey was down to the show being sponsored by Nestle who manufacture baby milk.

Interestingly this story then hit the headlines (albeit more with a focus on the perceived anti breastfeeding angle rather than the duff survey design). However this is an important step forward in campaigning around shoddy surveys used within media as if the public notice and speak up against biased surveys we may be able to challenge more of their widespread use.

It’s clearly difficult to show a link between the dodgy GMTV survey and the show’s advertisers (Nestle claim they had no influence on the survey). So leaving aside the possibility that the advertisers played some role, why else might this situation have arisen?

Within media it’s very common to use surveys. These can be used as promotional tools to plug a magazine or television show, or to create content or a peg to hang a story on.

While there is huge amounts of data that exists that could inform stories (more on this shortly) most journalists assume to make their story/programme ‘unique’ they have to create a brand new survey to inform later content. Which might be an article using data/quotes gleaned from a survey, or a discussion based radio or television show based around your survey results.

My hunch is this was simply the case of a journalist writing down a few questions and getting their producer to approve them. Possibly sharing them with colleagues in the office but certainly not reflecting on them, sharing ideas about the question tone, or piloting in any way.

Generally journalists aren’t aware of the amount of work that needs to go into designing, delivering and analysing a survey, so a back of the envelope sketch of a few questions is enough to run with.

It’s a classic example of poor journalistic practice as not only are the surveys created usually slipshod and meaningless, they’re also unethical since they may well upset participants (as in this case) or mislead the public on key health/social issues.

Moreover it’s bad practice because it shows no research has been done. For pretty much any topic on health or social issues there will be a body of research investigating that. Studies that can be found if you search using Scholar or PubMed. In the case of breastfeeding not only are there countless surveys on attitudes towards breastfeeding, experiences of breastfeeding, feeding duration, partner support, impact on relationships, there are even journals specifically dedicated to lactation. So it’s not exactly an area where you couldn’t quickly find numerous existing and well designed surveys that could inform a programme. As an example here’s what comes up when you put in the very basic searches attitudes towards breastfeeding and breastfeeding experiences.

Sadly many journalists appear unaware these resources exist, or unsure how to search and find information. When I speak to journalists about such resources they often tell me they couldn’t use any pre-existing surveys because they have to design a ‘new’ one in order for it to be fresh for their programming. There is no sense that the very purpose of existing published research is to inform and underpin education and practice.

This is worrying in terms of practice, but also depressing since evidence is published in order to inform public understanding and practice. It is remiss not to make use of such information that could still provide a talking point/background for a story or programme, but would ensure what was discussed was accurate and based on the experiences of a wide range of people.

My guess is that GMTV hosted a sloppy survey for reasons set out above. However there is really no excuse for this practice to continue. They have had a very public warning that such activities are unacceptable.

More than that, I was contacted by GMTV last week who are planning a forthcoming series of programmes. They asked if I might be involved and told me they were basing the whole event around a survey. I explained I’d be delighted to be involved but I’d need to see the survey first. I was told the survey was based on a few questions they’d written down but they did agree to send me them and in turn I gave detailed feedback on how to reword the questions and add more meaningful ones.

To date I’ve heard nothing back so I can either assume they’re busy firefighting the breastfeeding debacle, never got my emails, or my approach to trying to ensure their survey was correct was not welcome and they’ve found another expert (perhaps one who doesn’t ask difficult questions about surveys). Experience tells me it’ll be the latter, but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

If I do hear anything I will let you know. Given this barrage of complaint against the programme and an offer from at least one experienced social scientist to help improve their survey design one might assume GMTV would be keen to get it right in future.

Let’s see what happens. And in the meantime let’s continue to name, shame and campaign each time we spot a shoddy survey.

The papers are full of a new survey of female twins that’s about to be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. As part of a ‘debate issue’ on the g spot, this research by a team of UK scientists claims the g spot does not exist. Here’s a taster of some of the press coverage.

G spot ‘is just in the mind’ – The Express
Sexy g-spot a myth – New York Post
What an anti-climax – g spot is a myth – The Times

This research is brought to you by the team who also gave us studies (presumably carried out on the same cohort of twins) suggesting an infidelity gene; claiming (emotionally) intelligent women have more/better sex (covered here and here, that orgasm (and orgasmic problems) is genetically determined – plus a criticism that women shouldn’t orgasm too easily. As you’ll see within these links there are numerous problems around the conceptualisation and measurement of sexual response and orgasm within these research reports.

Backplot to the g spot
The G spot is not without controversy. Originally identified (in research) by Ernst Grafenberg the 1950s. It was remamed the g spot in his honour in the 1980s by Beverly Whipple and colleagues who revived discussions of the g spot in science and popular culture. Debates have raged since then over the importance and existence of the g spot, summarised neatly in this recent account from sex educator Betty Dodson.

The problem with much existing research on the g spot is it’s hampered by small sample sizes (for physiological research), self report in surveys, and anecdotal evidence for/against the existence of a g spot in qualitative research and popular culture. Participants are often white, middle class volunteers, and women who are bi or lesbian usually excluded from g spot studies. As have those who are not in a relationship or don’t engage in penetrative sex. Moreover inconsistent wording on interviews and questionnaires have often confused participants so it’s unclear what has been measured. Advances in research – particularly with ultrasound and thermal imaging – do offer more opportunities to study the g spot, although the political question remains about why are we so desperate to find the area and ‘prove’ its existence (or absence)?

Due in part to the 1980s revival of g spot research and also our changing commercialised and sexualised culture, the self help market was quick to pick up on the idea of a g spot. So you could go hear a sexpert tell you where yours was and how to find it, or read a book they’d written all about g spots. Or you could buy products with widgets and knobs and bendy bits to give your g spot attention. Or you could read one of the endless features in womens (and latterly) men’s glossy magazines praising the spot and telling you how to find it. Porn also shifted to include a hat tip to the g spot, although it wasn’t so easy to show. However, female ejaculation (the squirty friend of the g spot) was easy to demonstrate. Hence the popularity of this within porn currently. And most recently the cosmetic surgery industry has got in on the act offering g-shot parties where you can get a collagen injection into your vaginal wall to enhance the g spot (and make it easier for a partner to find).

The media have played no small role within this story, in particular women’s magazines keen to talk about sex but without being too raunchy. It’s no coincidence the g spot has had so much media coverage. As any journalist will tell you it’s much easier to get a g spot past your editor than mention the clitoris. Something that editors dislike and advertisers run scared of. It’s much easier to mention the g spot or show a picture of a g spot stimulating sex toy than it is to mention other genital names or frankly discuss what you actually need to do to stimulate a partner.

For some, the ability to discuss the g spot and have products available to explore it was a step forward within women’s sexual pleasure. Critics raised concerns over the focus on the g spot meant other areas of pleasure were neglected. The quest to find the spot (and the much promised g spot orgasm) created anxieties and insecurities on the part of couples. Disputes over whether women had g spots or could ejaculate meant women felt anxious. Either because they did feel they had a g spot orgasm (but science argued this was impossible), or because they didn’t have such an orgasm (but science told them they should).

In the past couple of years science has gone bananas for the g spot. In 2008 we were told the g spot definitely does exist, which the press went crazy for.

The current study
Is called ‘Genetic and environmental influences on self reporteg g spots in women: A twin study’ and will be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine shortly (early view here). It focused on a self reported postal questionnaire sent to 4625 women. 1875 responded to specific questions about sex. Of these the researchers excluded 71 women. Those ‘who reported they were homo or bisexual were excluded from the study because of the common use of digital stimulation among theses women, which may bias the results. Also excluded were women who had never engaged in vaginal intercourse’. Respondents were aged 22-83 with a mean age of 55.

Women were asked a series of questions about their sexual practices and frequency of sexual activity, including the questions ‘overall how frequently do you experience orgasm during intercourse’ and ‘overall how frequently do you experience orgasm through masturbation’. The wording of these questions is problematic and is discussed further in the links to previous studies by this team near the start of this blog. It appears from reading the paper that the participants in this study are also those reported in the previous studies on emotional intelligence and orgasmic heritability.

To identify the presence of a g spot participants were asked “Do you believe you have a so called G spot, a small areas the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina that is sensitive to deep pressure?”. This reads like a leading question with the inclusion of ‘so called’ and I’m not sure how useful/clear all participants would have found it.

Analysis revealed that women reporting orgasms through intercourse did not necessarily report the presence of a g spot, and those who reported having a g spot noted they were likely to orgasm through other forms of stimulation such as kissing or breast stimulation.

The researchers conclude “the g spot is rather a perception created by non physiological factors that can cause a heightened sexual sensation”.

Although the paper is interesting, and the researchers are at pains to stress they want to reduce women’s anxieties about pressure to find an elusive g spot, it really doesn’t fully explain the presence or absence of a g spot. Aside from being limited by self report and problematic wording of questions, the study really seems to capture the diverse ways women enjoy pleasure rather than the requirement of a g spot to have orgasms. It’s also concerning within the introduction of the paper the researchers repeat the message they’ve written in related studies – “knowledge of the anatomy, biology, physiology, and pathophisiology of female sexual function is limited. Female orgasm, in particular, is a complex phenomenon that is far from being understood”. This indicates a worrying lack of awareness of the wider evidence base on female sexual functioning that is not limited in scope, but does take issue with the stereotype of women’s orgasm being both complex and mysterious.

Previous studies claiming the g spot absolutely existed (linked to above) were limited by small scale samples that weren’t really large enough to draw conclusions from. Although the current study draws on a larger participant group it’s based on self report and isn’t really any more reliable in showing the g spot doesn’t exist. Critics may question why the research team have produced so many papers based on the same cohort? A cynic might call allege it’s a case of ‘salami slicing’.

In short recent studies claiming the presence or absence of the g spot are all limited and none of them appear robust enough to accept a claim either way. Although interestingly all have been funded in part (or wholly) by grants from Pfizer, so one might wish to question what that company’s interest is in the g spot.

The media response to the latest (no) g spot research
As you may expect the media’s response to the current study has been (as with all previous g spot studies) uncritical, unquestioning, and not based on reading the original paper. There’s little or no reference to other studies by this particular team, nor compared with existing research claiming g spot existed. Indeed it’s as though the media’s had a complete memory wipe and haven’t noticed that two years ago they were emphatically telling us that the g spot existed. Still, this study is harder to report for journalists. When they were working on the g spot does exist study it allowed for loads of features plugging sex toys, quoting ‘sexperts’, and giving loads of top tips about the g spot and how to find/enjoy it. Not possible if you’re now reporting the g spot doesn’t exist.

So the take home message is?
It’s pretty simple. Women are diverse. Some of us really enjoy vaginal stimulation by finger, penis, sex toy (or other item). Some women prefer clitoral, anal, breast or other stimulation.

Research that tells us we should focus exclusively on one spot or ignore it completely does little to reassure us or enhance our sex lives.

During the many conversations I’ve had with journalists today on this topic, one asked me ‘should we ignore the g spot?’ which is a good question. The current study suggests we should. The trouble is the g spot is deeply embedded in popular culture and the sex product industry and it’s unlikely to just disappear because one study says they don’t think it exists. Perhaps a better way forward is to think critically about the g spot. Be aware there’s plenty of folk who make money out of your worries of whether you do or don’t have one. Go exploring, but don’t feel under pressure.

You can expect this story to run over the coming weeks – and be spun into some fairly tedious and polarised debates – during which women’s voices and experiences will most likely be ignored.

The question for science is why are we still having this debate? Why can’t we accept genital diversity and explore through rigorous and novel methods what that might mean for women – rather than these tired old does the g spot exist? Yes it does! No it doesn’t! debates.

I’ll leave you with the excellent Daily Mash, who, as ever, provide a great spin on this story – Men who care about the g spot are a myth.

Update 06.01.10 – Tom Geoghegan over at BBC News Magazine’s written a great spin off piece Err on a g spot about the G spot debate looking at the history of the topic, talking to key advisors/researchers, and including practical advice for women and their partners.

Update 12.01.10 – Katy Kelleher’s produced an excellent overview of the research and media coverage in The Mystery of the G Spot: untangling the headlines.

Edit: A reader emailed and asked me if I based the title on this blog on Paula Cole’s song Where have all the cowboy’s gone? The answer is no. I based it on Peter, Paul and Mary’s Where have all the flowers gone? (Hippie parents). Either way you can easily insert ‘where have all the g spots gone’ to each song and sing along. Meanwhile, Dr Aust suggests The Kinks song Where have all the good times gone? works even better when the term ‘g spot’ is inserted into the lyrics.

What made me start blogging?
Five years ago I sat down on a dark November evening and wrote my very first blog entry. It was a bit ranty. I’d been misquoted by a journalist and was anxious it would get me into hot water (again).

I didn’t have a game plan when I started blogging. My partner (who’s way more tech savvy than I am) thought it might be a good way of sharing ideas I was struggling to convey via the mainstream media (I was writing several advice columns in magazines at the time, as well as hosting a regular radio phone in for BBC Five Live).

I approached the blog as a form of therapy. I wanted to work with the media but was getting a lot of stick for it professionally (I’m an academic as well as a sex educator). Having a place to blog would allow me to correct any errors in reporting and disclose bad journalism. I even hoped it it might even let me bring evidence into sex/relationships reporting – and show it was possible to do so without things becoming worthy or dull.

One thing I felt sure of early on was this blog was something I enjoyed writing, but I wanted to be useful, and most importantly to deliver things about sex, relationships, science and journalism that readers wanted to know about. Which is why the blog has always been shaped by things you’ve asked for.

Readers make this blog (or “why don’t you have comments?”)
Last summer I asked regular readers to give me feedback on this blog and got some very helpful responses. It’s taken me a while to implement some of these, but I have now upgraded the blog to include the things you asked for – photos and images to liven things up, a better blogroll, summaries at the start of most entries so you can decide if you wish to read on. And categories. Something I didn’ think about five years ago and really wish I had. I’m now in the process of going back through all the 800+ posts and adding categories to them, which I hope will make this blog a lot more useful to you.

The one thing this blog doesn’t have is comments. I did start off having them, but encountered several problems. As I was offering advice within columns and websites elsewhere I hadn’t planned to also answer problems on this blog. However, not all readers understood this so I frequently found requests for advice on anything from infidelity to penis size included in discussions about blogs relating to research design or journalism ethics. This sometimes led to some readers mocking those asking for advice, which of course is completely unacceptable for me as an educator.

Moreover, I’ve always blogged openly – never behind a pseudonym. I work within the community on sex/relationships projects and educational activities (in the UK and internationally). This meant I was very accessible, and felt vulnerable when those whose comments were deleted or not posted, made very personal threats.

I found moderating the comments was time consuming and took me away from other educational activities which I felt were more worthwhile. So I decided to remove the comments option. When I’ve asked readers if they want them back the general response is ‘no’. That’s mostly from people who feel the blog’s a safe space to get information which they can use as they wish elsewhere.

Of course I strongly welcome respectful email feedback and am always happy to add information or correct errors within the blog. You’re always welcome to start discussions on other forums or your own blog about issues raised here. For now I’ve no plans to reinstate comments, but since I’m occasionally asked why I don’t have them I thought this was a good a time as any to clarify the issue.

Achievements so far
Having read back to 2004 I’m pretty pleased with this little blog. It’s nice to see it’s grown into a resource that people trust and enjoy reading.

The things I’m most proud to have written are activist blogs that highlight medicalisation, exploitation and abuse. These include the debates around female sexual dysfunction, questioning high street stores stocking ‘herbal’ erectile dysfunction drugs (not approved by the FDA), exposing the Advanced Medical Institute’s aggressive sales technique for men affected by premature ejaculation, or highlighting misleading media coverage of the availability of Viagra on the high street.

I initially planned to use the blog to set right bad sex coverage in the media (or occasions where I’d been misquoted). This has been a theme within the blog although I think it’s become more focused over time (although not necessarily less ranty than my very first post). I can’t say whether it’s made much difference to journalists, and I hope it’s not put people off working with the media. I’ve found it helpful to describe poor practice – not least because the general trend for ‘experts’ working with the media is to act grateful for any exposure, not publicly discuss poor experiences or document bad practice. Gems for me include an expose of GMTV sending a cab to my home at 6am on the off chance I might wake up and come to their studio. Or how a TV show wanted to discuss female sexual confidence without mentioning genitals or masturbation. Or some rather nasty experiences with snotty TV producers just after I’d had a baby. Not to mention the hilarious case of the science journalist who really took a dislike to me (and colleagues). Oh, and let’s not forget the journalist who wanted me to recommend them an ‘unethical psychologist’ .

Of course, the past five years have not been spent simply slagging off journalists. No. Sometimes I’ve also turned my gaze to bad science too. Where it’s been depressing to report on a carnival of studies which seem to set us back sexually. Studies complaining women orgasm too easily, or there’s a ‘clitorocentric conspiracy’ against the vagina, how sex with a partner is 400% better than any other kind of sex you might have, and you can tell whether a woman has vaginal orgasms by her walk.

Let’s not forget my other bugbears. The fake formula and shonky surveys and my goodness this blog’s a treasure chest for those. And if I’m not being irritated by that, then there’s always the problem of psychologists talking about celebrities, or the general ethical issues raised by Big Brother for me to moan about.

Of course, it’s not all been bad news. Anyone would think this blog is only about gripes and grumbles. I’ve always wanted to showcase a variety of sexual experiences within this blog and not just think about sex just for a Western audience. I’ll continue to discuss issues relating to sex and seniors; teenagers; disability; transsexuality; lesbian, gay and bi issues; open relationships; BDSM; sexual health; contraception; prostitution; pornography; reproductive health; pleasure; desire; asexuality; dating; psychosexual problems; showcasing great sex pioneers; talking about safer sex; and as many other topics as I can find for you to read about.

Where to next?
Unlike five years ago, I’m now thinking strategically about this blog – who it’s for, what it does, and seeking to find ways to assess any impact it may have. I’ve noticed over the years it sometimes deviates into areas that interest me, but may not appeal to all readers. So my aim is to ensure the focus of the blog remains around the core things you’re most interested in when you visit – sex, science, and media.

I’m currently involved in overhauling the site so in the new year I hope to have far more open access materials available for you – relationships and sex guides, information about sexual and reproductive health, more advice and links to sources of help, along with practical information for journalists, healthcare professionals, parents, teens and teachers.

I’ve been asked by many readers for more information about how to become an agony aunt/media sex educator, so I’ll be blogging about this – as well as how to write a sex blog – in the not too distant future.

I’ll also be making use of twitter soon, as sometimes I blog about issues people need to hear about fast (particularly developments in science/health), so hopefully that will make messages more accessible. I’ll let you know once I’ve sorted it.

Obviously I’d like to hear what you’d like to see. How would you like this blog to develop over the next year (or five!). Are there any particular things you’d like to see more/less of? Topics you want covered? People you’d like me to interview for the ‘quickies’ section of the blog? Campaigns you want covered? Let me know what your vision is for this blog.

So, happy fifth birthday blog. Big birthday kisses to those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning. For those of you who’ve only recently found this blog I hope you like it enough to stick around for the next half decade. I notice one of my favourite other blogs Mind Hacks has also celebrated it’s fifth birthday too, so congratulations to them.

Time to blow out the candles and make a wish. Of course, I can’t tell you what it is. You’ll have to come back in five years to find out if it’s come true.

A brief history of formulas as marketing tools

Over the past few years we’ve got used to seeing formula used as a promotional tool by PR companies. Sometimes these are simply presented as just a formula, other times they are fronted by an academic or other ‘expert’. This has presented problems for universities where staff members (or people claiming an affiliation with a particular institution) use the institution’s name as part of the formula promotion.

Critics of the ‘fake formula’ approach have argued they are often not based on sound science, make little or no mathematical sense, and usually seem to be created by the PR company for an ‘expert’ to front (although this is often disputed by those promoting formulas). There’s also the concern that such formula appearing in the media may devalue robust academic research and reduce public trust in science.

Those academics who do front such activity (and there’s a core group who specialise in this practice) argue they’re merely promoting science and engaging with the public. A view that might be easier to believe if the formula stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Until now, debates on this issue have focused on academics fronting formula, but recently PR companies have taken a new tack and have used undergraduate students to promote their products.

This raises a lot of issues for universities and students and we need to think carefully about how it ought to be addressed.

The new PR approach – the case of the ‘Perfect Night Out’
The case in question began with a competition for ‘Britain’s Best Job’. Drinks Company Global Brands wanted to promote VK Vodka Kick (primarily, it seems, at Fresher’s events). The job advert stated “Wanted! Talented maths or science student or graduate to spend the summer literally discovering the formula of fun. Must be over 18 years of age like bars, clubs and pubs and be prepared to have a fantastic time in the quest for knowledge, science and the pursuit of the perfect night out.” The press release also stated “But there is a serious side to this and the applicant will be expected to deliver a full thesis at the end of the trip that must stack up to academic scrutiny by Britain’s best brains”.

PR Company Brahm worked with Global Brands for this activity. 50 students applied, and one Biology undergraduate student from Leeds University was picked for the task – to identify the formula for a ‘Perfect Night Out’ (PNO) based on undertaking a survey, then creating the formula.

The report created by the student can be found here (as text document) and here (as pdf). (This was described by the PR company as the ‘full thesis ‘ that ‘Britain’s best brains’ would be scrutinising).

I will leave you to critically evaluate the student’s report. Further discussions of the formula comes courtesy of Steve at Irregular Shed. Meanwhile Tristan O’Dwyer at Cargo Cult Science tackles the wider issues about this formula in relation to science communication.

I’m going to focus on key methodological and ethical issues that the research invites, and the wider implications of such research for students and universities.

Perfect Night Out – Survey and Semi Structured Interviews
The survey can be found here. It mostly seems to be asking general questions about a night out. PR company Brahm confirmed the survey was designed by the student. While the questions may seem fairly standard (although not particularly robust) there is the wider issue of how this survey was conducted. The student’s report (linked above) states “an online questionnaire was completed by 2000 people (male and female) and had a 100% response rate”.

It is not made clear how this survey was delivered online. Who hosted the survey? How long was it available for? How were participants recruited? I’m also curious about the 100% response rate which is pretty much unheard of in genuine social research. I can only assume there’s been a misunderstanding in understanding completion and response rates.

Contradiction exists between the report and the promotional activity. The student’s report stresses data were collected by an online survey. But the Global Brand’s website show the survey being conducted inside clubs as part of promotional activity – for example at Chester University and Manchester Metropolitan University.

The student’s report does state they conducted additional semi structured interviews, but it’s not clear how many were undertaken and whether they based activity shown in the clips above (which indicate a survey being used, not semi structured interviews). It is therefore unclear whether the student knows the difference between the two methods, or whether reporting on two approaches is confused in their write up.

The report does not make it clear how the semi structured interviews and survey worked together. While it is perfectly fine to use a variety of methods within research (sometimes called ‘triangulation’) it is standard practice to demonstrate how those methods link together. In this report we’re told the semi structured interviews were carried out post survey, but not shown whether the survey answers informed the semi structured interviews or how both of these informed the subsequent formula.

Ethical questions about the research
What is more worrying is the study was conducted in part within clubs and social events. This raises key issues of researcher safety and wellbeing, ethics and consent. Those who may be drunk are not in a strong position to consent to research (and may pose potential risks to researchers or other participants). Indeed if you wish to study people who are drinking alcohol or may be drunk it requires particular sensitivity and ethical approval. [Leeds University confirmed this study was conducted independently of their institution and therefore had no ethical approval].

A press release for the activity states “The official VKendology tour will start on Saturday 19th September, where the Research Team will hit UK Student’s Union’s during Fresher’s Week and students will be in with a chance to win their Perfect Night Out.”

This indicates participants were directly incentivised to complete the survey, something that is frowned upon in reputable social research (and also requires careful management in market research). The mention of the ‘research team’ also suggests aspects of this work were not simply down to one student, a survey and subsequent formula. I’m not sure whether the ‘research team’ are actual researchers or glamorous guys and gals dressed up to deliver a survey (or both). I would question the former, as presumably anyone who did know anything about social (or market) research would know this activity wasn’t the most robust or ethical.

I would like to think this report and the research described represents something casual and fun, not the best quality work the student could offer – nor representative of research writing skills she may have been taught on her degree programme. There are key details missing and as a result the write up does not appear particularly professional or scientific (see critique and links above).

I can understand that this activity would appear very exciting. (In the past I have undertaken PR-based research and know how beguiling such an activity may appear – at first). In this case the student was promised loads of fun nights out, the promised opportunity to do a bit of science, the chance to get some media coverage – and most importantly for a student it also is a paid post.

My concern is that in undertaking such activity, what may look like a fun opportunity may result in numerous problems for students and Universities.

What issues does involving students in PR activity raise?
Firstly, we have the question of student wellbeing. Usually students who are conducting research will require ethics approval and tutor support for studies they’re undertaking. There are three main reasons for this:
- to protect the participants researchers are interacting with and ensuring they are not harmed by the research process
- to ensure the research undertaken is appropriate and of a high quality
- and to protect the wellbeing and safety of the researcher.

It’s easy to say in this case it was basically a promotional activity and nobody was likely to be harmed. The questions seemed innocuous and unlikely to upset anyone. However, if a participant had disliked the research, or someone had threatened or harassed the researcher, who would be responsible? The point of having ethical controls over research is to ensure people can’t be harmed, and that researchers don’t play god and decide just because they don’t think their research is problematic then it won’t be bothersome to the public.

University staff are often aware of students who don’t let them know about research they are undertaking, often trying ambitious projects without notifying tutors or gaining ethics approval for their work. This can make students very vulnerable.

If PR companies intend to continue to use this method of getting students to front their campaigns, who is going to look after student or participant welfare? (Particularly if the ‘research’ is of a more personal or invasive nature). PR companies are keen to use Universities to add clout to campaigns, but where do Universities’ responsibilities lie if the student technically undertakes work without informing them and any negligent or non negligent harms arise?

No doubt PR companies and the commercial organisations who hire students may care little about the actual quality of research and be in no position to check on key questions about consent, ethics and personal safety. That is why both researchers and participants could be at risk if such activity becomes standard practice.

We know researchers can and do make mistakes. In fact it’s part of the steep learning curve of being a researcher in the natural, health or social sciences. Usually such problems around misunderstanding methods or poor report writing can be overcome with tutor feedback and practice. And remain relatively private.

However, if you undertake PR activity like this you run the risk of any errors you make being picked up on in public. Already bloggers have begun critiquing this particular study for example here and here.

This raises further issues about student wellbeing. After all, if you undertake a piece of work that’s promoted as fun and exciting, but the backlash is to label you a poor scientist, then that’s got to hurt (it’s partly why I’ve not named the student in this blog and am focusing more on the wider issues this case raises as opposed to a personal attack).

But if you undertake research outside of your institution who will be there to support you when things might go wrong? And what issues might this raise for your future career if, when you apply for a job, you’re known not as someone who advanced public understanding of science, but someone who undertook a piece of substandard PR research?

There’s also the wider issue of student responsibility to their fellow students and academic institution. As well as thinking about your own possible career pathway, you also need to consider the impact of your work on the reputation of others who might be associated with you. You may not appreciate that presenting ’science’ or ‘research’ in a particular way may actually make other genuine researchers lives a lot less safe, and recruitment a lot more difficult. Not to mention reducing public trust in science.

Sadly, not many universities teach this within methods training (and it’s fair to say many academics don’t always reflect in this way). You can see why an enthusiastic student being wooed by a PR company is probably not going to think twice about what the end result of their work might be for either their own reputation, or for those associated with their subject area.

I emailed Leeds University’s PR office to ask them if the student in question was studying with them (she is), whether she had applied for ethics approval for the study (no, since the research was not conducted as part of the institution), and whether she undertook the research in her capacity as a Leeds student (the PR office said no it was unrelated to Leeds, although they had put journalists in touch with the student so they could write their own stories/take photographs of her).

This is a key issue for me. We can’t really expect students to be aware of wider ethical and methodological issues that underpin research. That’s our job to teach them. We can’t blame students for wanting to earn cash and seeing PR activity as a fun way to do this. We can’t also blame students for being unaware of the background to the whole ‘fake formula’ issue (after all many academics don’t take it that seriously).

Universities and PR companies need to be responsible here. PR companies cannot use institutional names as part of promotional activity without ensuring that institution is aware of what they are doing and approves it. [Not that I expect PR companies to take any notice of this]. Universities also can’t play the ‘research wasn’t conducted as part of our university so it’s nothing to do with us’ line. If students are getting involved in so-called research activity and are allowed to be linked to it with mentions of the university in the press or passing on the student’s contact details to journalists, then the work is partly linked to the institution.

Universities need to be aware that the problem of PR activity in misusing scientific approaches has now been extended to students. They need to consider what this means for their students wellbeing and institutional reputation. Some institutions may not care, perhaps they’ll just be glad of some publicity. However there is the wider duty of care issue, and if any student is undertaking research-related work during their time studying with you then you have a responsibility to ensure you are aware of what they are doing and can ensure they work safely.

If PR companies are going to use students for promotional events then the media will report this and draw attention to your institution. Do universities want to be associated with studies that imply their teaching of research and ethics plus their pastoral care is substandard?

The problem is we have no clear guidelines on this issue. It is something that is new and many institutions won’t have had to think about it.

However, we’ve seen the uptake of using academics for fake surveys and formula has grown and it is likely using students (particularly to promote products to other students) could follow the same path.

The issue we must now face is what our approach should be on this issue. Let students do as they wish, so long as we can argue it’s not done in our name/on our time? Or take a stand and make it clear we do not endorse student activity in this way?

After all, if students really are keen to learn more about research methods, want to undertake studies, write reports, or bring science to the public there are numerous ways that can be done. As academics maybe we should make these opportunities more obvious (and focus on making our teaching of these topics more engaging).

Sure, they may not pay as much as a PR activity like this one. But in the long term they might be a whole lot better for a student’s reputation and personal development.