The inaugural Harding Prize for Useful and Trustworthy Communication has been jointly won by the ONS Covid Infection Survey and the Cochrane Review of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19.
The Harding Prize was launched this year to celebrate individuals or teams who had communicated information in a trustworthy and useful way - that genuinely helped people decide what to do, or help them judge a decision made by others. The prize is awarded by the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, based in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences in the University of Cambridge, in association with Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre, and is generously supported by Sir David Harding.
The prize of £3,141.59 will be split between the two winners, and will be awarded, appropriately, on World Pi Day, 14th March 2022.
What is the Harding Prize?
We are all constantly subjected to a barrage of information, usually claimed to be based on sound evidence, and during the pandemic this problem has been more obvious than ever. Who and what should we believe when we have important decisions to make?
Not everyone communicates in a trustworthy way; some may select the data that supports their argument while pretending to be an unbiased source, or misrepresent what the evidence is saying. The most dubious claims may be called out by fact checkers, but reliable, trustworthy communication of evidence is rarely celebrated.
The Harding Prize is intended to identify such sources, and encourage others to present evidence in a balanced, non-manipulative way, open to talking about pros and cons, and about uncertainties. These are communications designed to help the audience make up their own mind on a subject – not to lead them to the conclusions that the communicator wants them to draw.
This year’s nominations, as you might expect, mainly concerned Covid-19 (although not exclusively), and it’ll be interesting to see what comes up next year. There were many fine examples of trustworthy communication, both from organisations and individuals using articles and social media to help inform the public at this challenging time.
Judging panel
The judging panel was comprised of:
- Helen Boaden (Chair): previously Director of BBC News.
- Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam: Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England
- Baroness Onora O’Neill: philosopher and presenter of 2002 Reith Lectures on ‘A Question of Trust’
- Fraser Nelson: Editor, Spectator
- Helen Jamison: previously Deputy Director of the Science Media Centre.
The winners
The judges made the following comments about the joint winners:
Covid Infection Survey:
The Survey became the bedrock of all accurate communication on changing infection rates and variables in the UK during the Covid Pandemic. The Survey was innovative, impartial and clear and it shaped decision making at national, regional and local levels. Its lack of commentary - which probably made it rather dry for some audiences - augmented its credibility with policy makers and those like journalists, talking directly to the public.
It is no exaggeration to say that the survey became the gold standard of infection information and was the envy of scientific communities around the world. It also became a trusted source of reliable information for numerous members of the British public.
Cochrane Review :
As with all its projects, the Cochrane review worked to internationally agreed methodology and prioritised high quality (randomised) evidence. This particular review was a summary of the evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine in treating Covid19. Using clear language, it communicated straightforwardly and with balance that that there was no benefit to hydroxychloroquine which outweighed the side effects and that trials of it should be stopped. That decision was then made.
This subject may seem minor in the UK where treatment by hydroxychloroquine was never a big part of medical discussion. However, many millions of people around the world, especially in the USA and Brazil, were encouraged by their leaders to take this treatment seriously.
The panel felt that just as the ONS survey was the bedrock of accurate information about Covid infection rates in the UK, the Cochrane approach delivered rigorous, trustworthy and balanced reviews of scientific papers communicated with clarity and directness. Such reviews enabled policy makers, journalists and the public to discuss and make decisions based on the best evidence.
Helen Boaden, Chair of the judging panel, commented:
“It's never been more important for the public and policy makers to have access to the best possible evidence before they make significant decisions for themselves or others.
Both our winners set the gold standard for clearly communicating accurate, trustworthy, transparent data without frills or spin. The panel is delighted to jointly award them the inaugural Harding Prize.”
Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, Chair of the Winton Centre, said -
“The panel considered many fine examples, and we are delighted with the examples that they chose. We had intended to have a booby, ‘weasel words’ prize for untrustworthy communication dressed up as an unbiased source. There were many possible candidates, particularly in social media and in scientific pre-prints that had not gone through any peer review. But we finally decided that it would be inappropriate to highlight, and indeed publicise, such poor practice, and instead chose to focus on the positive efforts people have made. The Royal Society’s recent report makes clear that online misinformation is best tackled, not through censorship, but by encouraging a diverse media, independent fact-checking, careful monitoring, and education.”
Tracey Brown, director of Sense about Science, said:
“Statistics are the currency of public life. They are how we can describe the world and debate what is getting worse or better, and never more so than during the pandemic. We are so pleased to support the Harding prize in celebrating the individuals who have sought to equip people with the means to be part of those debates."
Fiona Fox, Chief Executive of the Science Media Centre, said:
“These are fantastic winners. The brilliant thing about the ONS survey is that it was communicated independently from the government communications machine so that the media and the public got to see the numbers every week free from government messaging. And in the middle of an ‘infodemic’ where 1000s of scientific papers of variable quality were circulating, Cochrane’s high quality review summarising where the best evidence lay on a much-hyped treatment undoubtedly saved lives”
Emma Rourke, Director of health analysis and pandemic insight at ONS, said -
‘The Covid Infection Survey has required the skill and perseverance of a large and multi-talented team. At our core has been the need to communicate such an important and sensitive issue accurately to a diverse audience, and be trusted to do so. We are delighted with this award, and are gratified that the information we have provided has proved valuable to expert users and influential on policy, but also understood clearly by the public.’
Dr Bhagteshwar Singh, and his co-authors of the Cochrane Review, said:
“We are honoured to receive this award. Our aim was to provide clinicians, policymakers and the public with a balanced, trustworthy, and clear account of the potential benefits and harms of hydroxychloroquine when used for COVID-19. This award confirms that our review was communicated clearly and transparently, which we are thrilled to hear.”
Details of winners and contacts
- ONS Covid Infection Survey:
Emma Rourke, Director of health analysis and pandemic insight at ONS emma.Rourke@ons.gov.uk
Miles Fletcher, Head of Media and Public Relations, ONS miles.fletcher@ons.gov.uk - Cochrane Review of Hydroxchloroquine
Dr Bhagteshwar Singh, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. bsingh@liverpool.ac.uk
Paul Garner, Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Coordinating Editor paul.garner@lstmed.ac.uk
Nicola Frost, Media Relations Manager Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, nicola.frost@liverpool.ac.uk