Communicating Science - Challenging old Perceptions

The title of this - my very first blog - is intended to suggest that for those of us communicating science (largely clinically focused in these pages) we should not forget that communications itself can also be something of a science. Clearly when working on any pharmaceutical product in Phase 2 or 3 a priority has to be getting the data published. But too often that is the only focus, and we are driven by impact factors of journals, readership levels and general all round kudos of being published in a high profile title. Not wrong, but not very creative either. As communications channels change, merge and diverge, we can be left wondering where else to focus our efforts, can we have closed blogs, websites, twitter feeds, facebook pages etc... where can we get meaningful discussion of new data withour jeopardising a publication? How will the regulators consider this, how will journals consider this, are we prepared to do something different to be more engaging with our clinical audiences? I don't propose any simple answers, because each pharmaceutical brand, medical device or diagnostic has its own unique challenges and unique audience sets. What I do propose though is that we don't ignore the fact that there is a whole host of new - and potentially more engaging - ways to bring the data to life. I hope that subsequent blogs and your comments will begin to explore where some of these opportunities lie.