There’s been talk recently about the BBC’s problems with integrity – I heard one chap say that the current crop of BBC journalists are the best-trained they’ve ever been. But, their science and health coverage continues to be shamefully poor. Lets take today’s headline story – Alcohol link to bowel cancer risk.

Now, if you’d already read the Cancer Research UK you would be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu.

The only piece of information the journalist has added was a quote from a chap at Alcohol Concern, the rest is copied almost directly from the press release. When I was at school, this was called ‘cheating’.

But, worse, the journalist seems to have made no effort to explain what the 10% increased risk actually means. Let me suggest two possible interpretations that any competent, numerate journalist might have considered and clarified on our behalf.

Let’s say my risk is 1 in 20. A 10% increase in risk could mean that that my chances of getting cancer moves to 1 in 18. In other words from 5% chance to 5.6% chance.

This is called the ratio of odds and it’s a common way for the media to misrepresent health statistics since it tends to give a bigger number to a smaller risk – 10% seems a lot scarier than .6% increase.

But, it could be that the 10% increase in risk mean that my chances go from 5% to 5.5%. This way of explaining things uses the ratio of rates.

Which is it? Well, thanks to the lazy BBC journalist, I can’t tell. To be fair, the press release doesn’t say anything about this either – but it’s the journalist’s job to investigate these things.

Also, note that I have no idea what the average and median alcohol consumption is – so can’t have any idea whether I’m in the 1 in 20 risk group, or given my alcohol consumption what my risk is.

Terrible journalism and what’s worse – deeply lazy.