Sir David Spiegelhalter in seven

x Sponsored content on Research Live and in Impact magazine is editorially independent.
Find out more about advertising and sponsorship.

1. Why are relative risk factors so poorly understood?

Good research has shown that relative risks – such as some food increasing a cancer risk by 20% – produces an exaggerated impression of the importance of risk. So it’s the researchers’ and media’s fault if they are poorly understood, as audiences are not being told the crucial factor: 20% of what? Without knowing the baseline risk, relative risk is impossible to interpret. On principle, I try to ignore every story that mentions ‘an increased risk’ – except as an example to criticise.

2. The media are often quick to be blamed for the misunderstanding of risk – is that a fair criticism?

I have a high regard for most health and science journalists. I believe – and this is backed up by research on press releases – that researchers and press offices are as much to blame as the media when it comes to exaggerated risk stories. And, of course, the sub-editors add clickbait headlines.