Complaint
A listener complained about an interview concerning trials for a personalised mRNA cancer vaccine, arguing that the programme should have disclosed a potential financial conflict of interest affecting one of the contributors, Professor Georgina Long, who discussed positive trial results for a treatment being developed by Moderna and Merck. The ECU considered the complaint under the 91福利社鈥檚 Editorial Guidelines relating to accuracy, impartiality and the identification of contributors and their credentials.
Outcome
The ECU considered an explicit reference to any paid consultancy role held by Professor Long would have provided additional context and recognised financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies are commonly declared in academic and medical research. However, the relevant question under the Editorial Guidelines was whether audiences would have been materially misled by the absence of that information.
The ECU found Professor Long had been introduced as the principal investigator on the trial, making clear that she was directly involved in the research rather than acting as an independent commentator. The programme identified Moderna and Merck as the companies developing the treatment and referred to the commercial significance of the announcement. The discussion was limited to explaining the treatment, outlining the headline findings and describing their potential significance, while also making clear detailed trial data had not yet been published. In addition, a second independent contributor provided context and highlighted important qualifications, including the need to assess the full evidence and consider value for money for the NHS.
In these circumstances, the ECU was not persuaded that an explicit reference to Professor Long鈥檚 financial relationship with Merck would have led listeners to reach a materially different conclusion about either the significance of the trial results or her contribution. While such information could have provided useful additional context, the programme gave sufficient information about her involvement in the research and the commercial interests connected with it.
Not Upheld