This idea has many merits, including that the scientific community has a responsibility to conduct itself in a deliberative, non-attention seeking way; and that its members should be oriented more towards the pursuit of insight than fame.
The phrase was coined by Spyros Andreopoulos, a public affairs officer at Stanford University Medical School, in a 1980 letter which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
[15] Pressure to announce research findings quickly enough to "avoid losing credit" for any scientific advances may be enhanced by limited or highly competitive funding.
Further, when results are released with great fanfare and limited peer review, basic journalism skills require skepticism and further investigation, the frequent lack of which can be seen as a problem with the media as much as with scientists who seek to exploit their power.
On the other hand, over-hyped early findings can inspire activists' ire and even their direct and critical use of the phrase "science by press conference".
[17] Similarly, clinical trials and other kinds of important medical research may release preliminary results to the media before a journal article is printed.
On the other hand, the latter practice is especially vulnerable to abuse for self-serving ends and thus has drawn criticism similar to that implied by the phrase "science by press conference".
[18] These examples illustrate that the derision in the term "science by press conference" does not necessarily reflect an absolute rule to publish before publicizing.