Lifespan Ethics Code of Longevity Journalism
As medical science advances, we are uncovering the causes of aging and opening the doors to healthy longevity, but journalists covering the field are now facing a bigger challenge than ever as they navigate the complex world of aging research.
Every day, journalists in this field need to adjust to new ideas and possibilities while addressing cognitive biases about aging and separating fraud and fake news from a constant flood of information.
Rejuvenation biotechnology has the potential to alter the lives of billions of people suffering from age-related diseases, but people affected by these diseases often lack information about the solutions that are currently being researched.
We believe that it is our duty to provide accurate information, to maintain productive public dialogue, and to allow people to make fact-based decisions about healthy life extension.
We encourage both professional and amateur journalists who cover aging and rejuvenation research to adopt the highest standards of ethics. As one of the pioneers of the industry, we have developed the Lifespan Ethics Code of Longevity Journalism, which is intended to act as a guide for all good-faith actors in our community as well as for ourselves.
Empowering the public
Promote communication of facts: The goal of properly conducted journalism is to provide and distribute factual, understandable, and unbiased information to the general public.
Sensationalism should be avoided; the title of an article should reflect its actual content. For example, if the study is in mice, the title should not imply that the study results concern humans.
Any events involving celebrities should only be discussed if they are directly and clearly related to age-related conditions and only when the celebrity has been professionally diagnosed. Engaging in speculation and hearsay is not professional.
As our field has a problem with overpromising and underdelivering, unrealistic projections and terms that suggest unrealistic outcomes should be avoided. Maintaining the integrity of this scientific field requires a commitment to even-handedness and factual accuracy.
Focus on important information: The amount of information in this space makes it difficult for members of the public to determine its importance. Longevity journalists should decide what information is the most important and then prioritize that information when reporting the news. Importance can be judged by both the current research landscape and by the industry’s current priorities.
Embrace diversity of opinion: Longevity journalists must acknowledge that this is an evolving field and that the results of one well-conducted study may contradict the results of another well-conducted study. Diversity of opinion is a natural and necessary part of scientific research. It is not appropriate to favor one particular approach to the exclusion of others. Research that has scientific merit should be given fair coverage.
Report on the whole landscape: Search engines and social media algorithms can obfuscate useful information in favor of things that are less useful. Longevity journalists should endeavor to report information that may otherwise go overlooked.
Do no harm
Inform, not suggest: Longevity journalists have the ability to push people towards making health choices. They should take responsibility for how they report on medical research, clinical trials, and personal self-experiments.
The goal is to inform, not to steer people towards certain choices. Therefore, longevity journalists should report truthfully on any limitations and caveats of the studies that they cover. They should also not exaggerate the meaning or the potential effects of the results.
Use accurate terminology: The terms used in longevity journalism should accurately reflect the subjects being discussed. For example, some clinical trials have medical patients as participants, but this is not true of all trials. Interventions cannot be referred to as clinical therapies until they have passed the clinical trial process. Proper disclaimers and warnings about the experimental nature of unproven treatments are a must.
Make the pyramid of evidence clear: When writing about cell culture or animal studies, use clear language. The results of these studies are not guaranteed to translate to humans. Indeed, many treatments that work well in animals go on to fail in human trials. Longevity journalists should set reasonable expectations when writing about early-stage trials.
Present full data: Coverage of interventions should include possible benefits but also side effects and potential risks. Negative data from studies should get as much coverage as previous positive data. In biology, well-conducted failed experiments often offer as much useful evidence as successful ones.
Have compassion: Journalists should treat sources, subjects, colleagues, and members of the public with respect and compassion. The well-being of everyone involved should be considered when determining what personal information can be shared publicly.
Provide fair treatment: Members of the public or researchers that are subject to criticism should be given fair treatment. They should be allowed to provide their opinions and defend themselves in the interests of fairness.
Transparency
Use multiple sources whenever possible: To report accurately, longevity journalists should use more than one source. They should also report on current research in the context of previous research.
Involve independent sources: Researchers might be biased because of their personal involvement. When applicable, longevity journalists should seek independent experts’ opinions when reporting on studies.
Credit sources: Sources of information, such as scientific publications, press releases, information on a biotechnology website, interviews, and personal discussion, must be declared. Anonymous sources should be avoided as much as possible to avoid distorted information. Press releases should be clearly labeled as such.
Conflicts of interest: The audience must be able to trust the content. They should be confident that editorial decisions are not influenced by political or financial pressures.
Covering outside companies or projects in which journalists and their organizations are financially involved is risky. This can harm their reputations and should be avoided.
If a journalist receives a travel/accommodation grant to attend a scientific event, the source should be declared. If writing about the event, this normally appears in the form of a declaration somewhere within the article.
A journalist can cover external company or project if there is a formal agreement, such as a fiscal sponsorship, but the nature of this agreement must be clearly disclosed in all published materials.
When external press releases are published, a conflict of interest disclaimer may be required if anyone in the publishing organization has a financial interest in that company.
Articles by external contributors should include a disclaimer of their affiliation or interest in any companies mentioned. It is typical to mark such articles as op-eds, and that is indeed our policy here at Lifespan. The opinions expressed within such articles are those of the external author and not necessarily those of Lifespan.
Contextualize the quality of data: Publication in a highly respected journal does not guarantee accuracy, and publication in a lesser-known journal or public database does not necessarily mean that the information is of low quality. Use of open-access material allows the public to directly view the data in question.
Longevity journalists should always cite their sources and provide their best assessment of data, including how well it matches other relevant research. The scientific credibility of a paper’s researchers should also be taken into account. Preprint studies, which have not yet been peer reviewed, should be properly identified as such.
Independence
The source should not have review or approval power: Showing a source the final article can harm journalistic professionalism. It may also reduce the source’s respect for the journalist’s organization.
It is a journalist’s job to research and write factual articles. Sending a finalized version to get approval from interviewees signals doubt in the journalist’s own professionalism and skills. The phrase “do not let your source be your editor” exists for this reason.
The exception to this is if a subject is outside the journalist’s expertise or involves highly technical details. In this situation, it is appropriate to go over the details to ensure that they are factual. However, any changes must only relate to factual accuracy.
In all cases, any content written by an organization must be approved by that organization, not a third party.
Ensure independent writing: A journalist with a personal stake in a company must not cover stories involving that company. This also applies to coverage of that company’s competitors.
Refuse gifts: Longevity journalists should understand that gifts and other means of building friendly relationships can influence reporting. They should not accept personal gifts or favors from companies in the field or from their competitors. Doing so introduces bias and potential reputational risk.
Avoid sponsor influence: Sponsors must not influence editorial decisions. The choice of materials should reflect the interests of the public, not any small group of people.
Clearly indicate advertisements: All advertising content should be clearly and unambiguously marked as such. This applies to all types of materials, including paid content.
Recognize personal involvement
Recognize unconscious emotional factors: Life-and-death issues can shape how we see things. This can affect how we report, leading to unconscious word choices that support or ignore certain scientific developments. Longevity journalists should try to reduce emotional reactions. They can do this by focusing on facts and giving proper context.
Avoid biases: Longevity journalists striving for fact-based reporting should be aware of cognitive biases, including both longevity-specific biases and more general biases. Extra care should be taken when dealing with potentially controversial content.
Declare personal views: In many cases, science journalists may have their own opinions of scientific paradigms. Instead of denying personal preferences, journalists should make them clear so that the public can take them into consideration when reading the article. This especially applies if writing an opinion piece, which should also be clearly indicated.
The Ethics Code of Longevity Journalism is an ever-evolving set of ethical principles. We plan to update and improve it over time as new challenges arise. Professional ethics are an important part of the advocacy toolkit and key to earning public trust. You can trust us to continue adhering to these ethical standards as we bring you the latest longevity news.