Gleason score? Writing spot science stories is tougher than it looks
Have you ever heard of a Gleason score? If you’ve covered cancer you probably have, and you might know more about it than I did. I knew–or thought I knew–that it had something to do with how severe a case of prostate cancer was. And I was reasonably sure it had nothing to do with The Honeymooners.
Now I have a much better idea, thanks to the solid reporting of Ed Edelson of HealthDay, who can pack more detail and clarity (two things that in less capable hands conflict with one another) into a 500-word story than just about anybody in the business. Of course, he’s had practice. I met Edelson in the 1980s when he was doing this for the New York Daily News and had been doing it for a long time before that. As far as I know, he’s been writing spot science stories since sometime in the late paleolithic. (It might not sound like it, Ed, but I mean this as a compliment.) And he can write a story in less time than it takes the rest of us to text the link to somebody.
Edelson’s story on a March 22 report in the journal Cancer reports that men who are infertile have an increased risk of developing an aggressive form of prostate cancer. He quickly explains that previous studies have hinted at such a link, that the new study found little difference in the incidence of prostate cancer among fertile and infertile men, but that it found an increased incidence of prostate cancers with high Gleason scores in the infertile men. A Gleason score, he deftly explains, is a measure of abnormal organization in a prostate tumor and an indicator of aggressive growth.
The nice thing about Edelson’s explanation is that he doesn’t pause, alert readers that an explanation is coming, and then explain. He keeps the story moving and slips it in so neatly that you don’t even know you’ve learned something. Such tricks are part of the sport of writing a tight, clear spot science story.
Edelson also resists the temptation to make this a one-source story. He quotes the American Cancer Society’s director of cancer screening, who vouches for the study’s potential value.
Frederik Joelving of Reuters doesn’t explain or even mention the Gleason score, which is too bad. He merely refers to “aggressive prostate cancer.” And where Edelson gave us an isolated number–the cancers with high Gleason scores were 2.6 times more likely in the infertile men–Joelving packs four different numbers into two paragraphs: 1.2 percent, 0.4 percent, 2.6 times, and 1.6 times. He explains what the numbers are, but I fear that readers trying to recall this story at supper time will struggle to remember what the most important number was:
Reader: “I saw a story today saying that infertile guys have more prostate cancer.”
Spouse: “How much more?”
Reader: “I’m not sure. One-something, or two times as much. Point four? I dunno. Anyway, it was higher.”
Spouse: “Well, my brother doesn’t have any kids. Should he be worried?”
Reader: “I don’t know. I don’t remember…Can we please change the subject?”
Edelson’s story is far more likely to promote marital bliss:
Reader: “I read that infertile guys are 2.6 times as likely to have a bad kind of prostate cancer.”
Spouse: “Wow, honey, you really know your stuff! I’ll call my brother!”
Reader: “But wait–tell him we need more research before we can be sure!”
Thomas H. Maugh II at the Los Angeles Times Booster Shots blog gets the 2.6 figure in the lede and the hed, something neither Edelson nor Joelving did. He includes the other numbers lower in the story, after readers have had time to absorb the key finding. No Gleason score mentioned here.
Jennifer Warner of WebMD Health News politely explains that there were 22,262 men in the study, at 15 infertility centers, that they were evaluated from 1967 to 1998, and that researchers found 168 cases of prostate cancer, not much different from the 185 that would be expected.
All of those numbers–six of ‘em, if you include the dates–appear before we get to the key number–that infertile men are 2.6 times more likely, etc.
Best to, uh, put the important stuff up top, no?
Edelson makes it look easy. Scan a few other stories, and you’ll see that it’s not.
- Paul Raeburn
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Paul, your mention of Ed’s speed brings back a lot of memories from press rooms – where reporters who had gathered at meetings sat down after a press conference and rapped out their copy on typewriters. We’d all still be sweating our ledes. Ed would stand up tall, look around with a satisfied bemused expression, and stride nonchalantly out of the room. All done, chumps! If envious scowls could kill, he’d be long dead.