NEWS

Royal Society under spotlight

The British Parliament is set to put the Ian Gibson chairs the Select 1200 Fellows, of which 44 (3.7%) are Royal Society—one of the world’s oldest Committee and in addition to being a women. Of 366 Fellows who are under and most distinguished scientific bod- former professor of biology at the 65 and living in the UK, 17 (4.6%) are ies—under the microscope. The focuses University of East Anglia, he was also women. It says that this reflects the pro- of attention will be on efforts by the soci- a trade union activist. portion of professors in sci- ety to promote public understanding of He says that it entific and engineering science, an examination of why there are is time to broaden the disciplines who are female. a few women and minority groups criteria by which It adds, “statistically, a among the organization’s members, and fellows of the Royal woman stands a slightly what the society does with the £26 mil- Society—one of the higher chance than a man lion a year that it receives from the pub- highest honors a of being elected once nom- lic purse. British scientist can inated.” The House of Commons Select receive—are elected. Lord Bob May, the soci- Committee on Science and Technology “Perhaps more weight ety’s president and a for- will hold public hearings into the activi- should be given to the mer chief adviser to the ties of the society, which may yield a role that an individual has played in pro- government, points to several ways it is head-on confrontation between moting the public understanding of sci- helping to increase the number of Britain’s scientific establishment and ence and the social use of scientific women in senior scientific positions. He left-wing members of the government, knowledge, not just to scientific achieve- also feels that the organization has little who claim that the Royal Society is an ments,” Gibson says. to fear from parliamentary scrutiny of elitist organization in need of radical re- The Royal Society strongly defends its the way that it conducts its affairs. form. record. Presently, the Royal Society has David Dickson, London

Experts at odds over mammography

In the latest round of arguments over Peter Gotzche (Lancet 358, 1340; Medicine, adding æ…a 55% reduction in the value of mammography, two sets 2001). This group focused on two stud- breast cancer mortality is too good to of researchers have reached opposite ies—the Malmo study and a Canadian be true. It is contradicted by national © http://medicine.nature.com Group 2002 Nature Publishing conclusions after analyzing the same study—and concluded that mammog- breast cancer mortality trends in coun- data. Fearing further erosion of public raphy is “unjustified because it does tries that have adopted screening.” confidence in the technique, 10 US not reduce mortality among the popu- Joann Schellenbach, an official with medical organizations placed a full- lation being screened.” the American Cancer Society (ACS), page advertisement in The New York Henschke’s team say the Danish re- called the controversy “a somewhat ar- Times last month declaring, “The evi- searchers did not follow patients long cane scientific debate about methodol- dence as a whole solidly supports re- enough for the life-saving benefits of ogy” and an “interpretation of results duced breast cancer mortality rates due mammography to become apparent. from trials that were mostly done out- to mammography screening.” “They did not recognize that the bene- side of the US decades ago,” and says Claudia Henschke and colleagues, of fit of screening in reducing breast can- the studies used “screening intervals Weill Cornell Medical College in New cer deaths in a randomized controlled and technology that does not compare York and McGill University Medical trial only becomes apparent after years with today in the US.” Nevertheless, School in Montreal, analyzed a study of screening—in the Malmo study after the ACS is to convene a meeting of ex- performed in Malmo, Sweden and seven years of screening—and that perts to re-examine existing evidence found that women 55 or older who screening must continue for assess- and draft new guidelines for breast were followed from 8 to 11 years had a ment of this benefit,” she says. cancer screening. reduced risk of death of 55% with rou- “Otherwise, the moment screening The US National Cancer Institute tine screenings. Women 45 to 54 at the stops, the deaths from breast cancer in (NCI) had also stepped into the fray by beginning of the study experienced a the screened group again increase to- convening a panel of experts to evalu- 30% reduction in mortality (Lancet wards that of the control group.” The ate the data. They appeared to side 359, 404; 2002).”The major message of Canadian study would not show the with the Danish researchers. However, the paper is: annual screening with benefit because it only lasted three a new statement by the NCI hedges its mammography saves lives,” Henschke years, she adds. bets. It continues to recommend told Nature Medicine. But Gotzsche insists the Cornell doc- screening whilst admitting that it will Their claims are a direct contradic- tors should have analyzed both studies, "address the uncertainties …surround- tion of earlier reports—also published and not just a subset of the Malmo trial. ing screening mammograms," and that in The Lancet—by a team from the “The overall result of these two good it is now examining new data on mam- Nordic Cochrane Center in trials is negative and does not lend sup- mography. Copenhagen led by Ole Olson and port to screening,” he told Nature Marlene Cimons, Washington, DC

202 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 3 • MARCH 2002