# 2283
Below is a story that has been widely carried by many news outlets over the past couple of days. This version came from the Belfast Telegraph, but almost all of the write-ups are the same.
Scientists are beginning clinical trials on a new, universal flu vaccine. (And yes, this is both exciting, and important news.)
But read the article below, then we'll discuss it.
Trials begin on a vaccine that may beat flu – and bird flu
Saturday, 6 September 2008
Clinical trials of a new universal flu vaccine that could offer long-term protection against strains including human mutations of bird flu are starting at Oxford University.
If successful, the jab would overcome two problems – at the moment, doctors can only vaccinate against certain strains of flu and have to change the formulation every year in response to the developments of new variants.
Lead researcher Dr Sarah Gilbert, of the university's Jenner Institute, said: "This approach to influenza vaccination is unsatisfactory for use against seasonal influenza and of little use when new types of flu begin to infect humans from birds.
"It leaves manufacturers with a few months to produce the necessary stocks, the vaccine has to be administered to at-risk populations within a short time window, and those receiving the injection will all have to be vaccinated again the following year."
If initial trials on 12 volunteers are successful, the vaccine will have further testing before it can be approved for use.
Existing flu vaccines work by producing antibodies in reaction to proteins on the surface of the virus.
But it is those proteins that change between strains and develop over time, so the new vaccine instead attacks internal proteins that remain unchanged. This should make it universally effective
It all sounds very encouraging, doesn't it? If successful, we could defeat influenza . . . even bird flu!
Of course, we are cautioned, `further testing' will be required if this first human trial goes well.
How much further testing?
Well, to find that answer we have to go to the BBC's story of two days ago, one which is considerably longer, and more detailed than the one reprinted widely around the world yesterday and today.
In that version, well written by Emma Wilkinson and with a rather sedate headline of Universal flu vaccine tests start, early on we are told that:
Experts said such a vaccine was the "holy grail" for flu researchers but there was still a long way to go.
And a bit later in the article, we are informed by the lead researcher, Dr. Sarah Gilbert that:
But she added the research team had five to 10 years of further tests ahead of them.
And lastly,
Professor John Oxford at Queen Mary, University of London said such a vaccine would be the "ultimate prize".
"But it's a fairly difficult prize to get - it may just be a question of luck.
Hmmm, not quite as upbeat.
But we can fix that.
Saying `the vaccine will have further testing before it can be approved for use' sounds so much better than there being five to 10 years of further tests ahead of them.
Both statements are technically correct, after all.
And the cautionary statements by other experts? Just omit those. No point cluttering up a good story with that sort of thing.
What we have left is a story suitable for the masses. One that avoids introducing conflicting ideas that only serve to confuse the reader. One devoid of hard to absorb numbers, like 5 and 10.
And it's a shorter story that fits better in-between advertisements.
Always a plus.
Admittedly, I'd be a bit more ecstatic about this research if I hadn't read the BBC version; the one burdened with all those pesky facts and opinions.
Luckily, given the quality of the coverage I've seen on this story, most people won't have that problem.
