Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

From the Blogosphere

“What science is worth shouting about?” asks Martin Fenner on his Gobbledygook blog on Nature Network. Fenner, a clinical fellow in oncology at Hannover Medical School in Germany, puts cancer research newsworthiness under the magnifying glass (

He breaks down the stakeholders for cancer research news into five categories — basic researchers, drug companies, insurance companies, the media and patients — and discusses the motives each has when producing or reading results. For example, Fenner notes, the drug erlotinib won approval from regulatory agencies because it prolonged survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. But insurance companies might balk at the cost: in trials the median survival increase was less than two weeks, meaning the drug costs about US$410,000 per year of life saved.

Fenner concludes that the media needs to better distinguish between basic, early clinical and translational findings; scientists should take care when reporting cancer findings outside of specialist journals; and readers should be supremely sceptical.

Additional information

Visit Nautilus for regular news relevant to Nature authors → and see Peer-to-Peer for news for peer reviewers and about peer review → .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

From the Blogosphere. Nature 457, 356 (2009).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing