Those of us who pursue engineering solutions to medical problems have learned to become quite conservative in reporting our research to the popular media. This is because our small steps forward are usually not newsworthy in the popular sense, and the effort by ourselves or our journalists to make them so frequently end in exaggeration.

I recall a personal incident in which an experienced and quite responsible science writer did a piece on my research for the science section of the Sunday newspaper. Although the article was modest enough a sufficient amount of human interest and speculation about the future impact of this research was introduced to capture the attention of a West Coast freelance writer who called me, asked some questions, put some "layman's" words in my mouth and then sold a sensational story to Globe. It appeared a week later (on a page with Mick Jagger and Bianca). My family and friends were delighted, but not my colleagues. one of whom was annoyed enough to tack the item on the bulletin board in the cardiology office at a university where much of my work has its clinical support and encouragement.

We learn from the above lesson of a big risk in popularizing our work, besides the obvious one of falsely raising the hopes of the public: possible loss of respect by our peers. To the engineer whose research depends very heavily on successful collaboration with medical colleagues, such respect is essential. The benefits of media exposure are considerable: praise for one's self, publicity for one's university, unexpected financial support by foundations and individuals whose funding decisions may be based on popular rather than peer opinion. But the risk is also significant, and on balance, many of us decide to resist the temptations of newspapers and television.

My own experience with the not so collegial reaction of my colleagues to my moment of media glory is nothing compared to that of Jerrold Petrofsky. He is the physiologist at Wright State University in Dayton whose work in electrical stimulation of paralyzed muscle has recently received so much media attention and peer reaction. After several years of preliminary work with animals Petrofsky in 1982 began sonic experiments in which current applied to electrodes on the legs of paraplegic: patients is used to stimulate contraction of the underlying muscle, to effect standing and even some primitive movement.

The technique is neither new nor unique to Petrofsky's laboratory, but it has now been described by the media as a "breakthrough" and "miracle of modern medicine", despite the fact that many years of hard work will be needed before a practical system is available for a limited number of paralyzed patients. The Wall Street Journal, People magazine and Reader's Digest all ran stories and by February 1984, Petrofsky had been featured on such TV shows as That's Incredible, Phil Donahue, 60 Minutes and Nova. Following the Nova story, CBS produced a full length made-for-TV movie called First Steps, billed as a "real-life drama" and portraying Petrofsky and one of his paraplegic: research subjects.

When the movie was aired in March of this year, many researchers finally objected to the exaggerated treatment of Petrofsky's research and to the unwarranted expectations such exposure would engender among paraplegic patients and their families. Michael Rosen, principal research scientist in the Mechanical Engineering Department at MIT, typified this reaction in his July article in Technology Review:

"Because of the publicity over Petrofsky's work, many victims of spinal cord injury now believe they will soon be able to discard their wheelchairs.'

A second objection raised by neuromuscular scientists is that the media portrayals ignored the work of many other investigators who have been conducting similar experiments for up to 15 years, have enrolled and successfully studied more patients and have repeatedly recorded instances of more extended activity, including forward movement of several hundred feet and ascending and descending stairs.

The magnitude of the reaction by other scientists can he noted from the signatures on a "Joint Statement" which has appeared in several important technical publications and which begins:

"The undersigned biomedical scientists wish to correct certain misimpressions and misleading statements that have appeared in the lay press regarding the state of the art in the application of electrical stimulation to move paralyzed limbs. As active and long-standing contributors to this area of research, we are concerned that the continued dissemination of mis-information will cause serious disappointment to patients suffering from motor disorders and may reflect adversely on the significant contributions of the many responsible and productive researchers in this field."

The statement, in its original public appearance, bore the signatures of 27 respected neuromuscular scientists.

Petrofsky's peers have not only blamed the media for its telling of the story, but also Petrofsky himself for courting media attention for the past two years. Gerald Loeb, who is a well respected neuromuscular expert at NIH, stated in the newspaper of IEEE (the world's largest professional society):

"I find it difficult to imagine that this story could have been played in so misleading a way for as long as it did and in as many different places as it did without at least the tacit consent of Petrofsky."

To the question, "What price TV glory?" an unhappy answer is emerging in the still unfinished Petrofsky story: the price may be one's reputation in the scientific community. Part of this price will be paid by a trusting and hopeful audience to these media events. Their discovery that some giant claims are flawed usually has ripple effects. Trust in medical research diminishes and with that loss may go diminished public support as well.