Ahh celebrities. From music and acting to the world of supermodeling and sports -- they are respected, admired, even worshiped, for their talent and magnetism. But herein lies the danger when these stars publicly espouse or endorse viewpoints and products in health and medicine without first thoroughly exploring the scientific validity of such claims.

Why danger? For segments of the population -- especially kids who are easily influenced by star role models -- celebrity statements and viewpoints (however misguided and unfounded they may be) are read with interest and often accepted without challenge.

Consider the impact that this statement from supermodel Gisele Bundchen could likely have on a fashion-conscious teenage girl when Bundchen publicly expressed disdain for sunscreen: "I cannot put this poison on my skin... I do not use anything synthetic," she said in 2011. Her comments brought this more correct perspective from pharmaceutical scientist Gary Moss: "Cosmetic products -- including sunscreens -- are regulated and are tested extensively before they are allowed onto the market. And you might be surprised," he continues, "that we use a wide variety of synthetic materials in many aspects of life. 'Synthetic' does not automatically mean bad, just as 'natural' does not automatically mean safe or beneficial."

From a growing compendium, here are several more questionable health and medical claims made recently by celebrities:

-- In espousing the nutritional value of sperm, Britain's famed martial artist and kick boxing star Alex Reid, says, "It's actually very good for a man to have unprotected sex as long as he doesn't ejaculate. Because I believe that all that semen has a lot of nutrition." He adds: "A tablespoon of semen has your equivalent of steak, eggs, lemons and oranges. I am reabsorbing it into my body and it makes me go raaaaahh." The irresponsibility of advocating unprotected sex aside, reproductive research scientist John Aplin reports: "The nutritional content of the ejaculate is really rather small."

-- Former actress Suzanne Somers, a breast cancer survivor, claims that her success in beating cancer is linked to injections of mistletoe extract (despite the fact that she also had a lumpectomy and radiation treatment). And in her book Knockout, she lauds the effectiveness of certain dietary supplements, coffee enemas and other unconventional means in "curing cancer," even though these methods are not supported by scientific evidence.

-- Film star Demi Moore thinks our health can be optimized by treatment with leeches. "They [leeches] have a little enzyme and when they are biting down on you, it gets released in your blood and generally you bleed for quite a bit and then your health is optimized -- it detoxifies your blood."

Even Elle magazine, whose job it is to cover the world of fashion and stars, has to admit the power that such questionable statements can have on influencing the public. "Chances are, most readers chuckled at such celebrities' statements rather than treating them as legitimate, informed beliefs," says Elle UK.com, the magazine's online edition in Britain. "But responding to celeb health claims at face value underlines the extent to which prominent figures' views can sway public behaviours."

Needless to say we need better truth detectors to help the public discern between fact and falsehood in the realm of health, medicine and science. I'm happy to learn that such responsible detectors are on the rise with such organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the British group Sense About Science, as well as Dr. Ben Goldacre's Bad Science website in England -- all of which monitor, and correct when necessary, scientific claims made by celebrities, the news media and others.

As founder and chief organizer of the USA Science & Engineering Festival, the nation's largest celebration of science and engineering, I am proud to include the festival as among such timely efforts in advancing the accurate perception of scientific research.

The festival's second national gathering will take place next April in satellite events across the nation, and culminate in a massive expo on April 28 and 29 in Washington, D.C. -- an event that will not only celebrate the wonders of technology, but will also, through highly interactive stage shows, exhibits and other activities, help young students and others develop critical thinking skills needed to discern between fact and myth in scientific research.

In these discovery sessions, students will meet and engage with such celebrities and "stars" in science and engineering as: Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman -- hosts of the Discovery Channel's hit TV series Myth Busters -- who will tell how they go about dispelling science myths on their show; Bill Nye the Science Guy, who will take kids inside the known and unknown in science; Chemist Joseph Schwarcz, Ph.D., will help demystify aspects of science through magic; James Kakalios, Ph.D., a physicist that applies science in letting kids know how realistic Hollywood superhero movies are; modern-day storm chaser Karen Kosiba, Ph.D., helps students discern fact vs. fiction in the occurrence of tornadoes and other storms; Seth Shostak, Ph.D., an astronomer involved in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) explains what science can say about life on other planets; sleight-of-hand performer Apollo Robbins takes you inside the art of telling reality from illusion, and award-winning New York Times science reporter Benedict Carey tells why accuracy in science writing is so important.

The excitement does not stop there. The Festival's Expo also features day-long "Encounters With Scientists and Engineers" sessions in which students can meet real-life role models in these fields and ask them face to face about the accuracy of science and engineering topics in the news and other related subjects.

And leading up to the Expo during the month of April will be a series of other interactive events which will expose kids to leading scientists and engineers, including our Nifty Fifty school visit program sponsored by AT&T, and the Lunch with a Laureate program that gives small groups of middle and high school students the chance to engage in informal conversations with 15 Nobel Prize-winning scientists during a brown bag lunch.

The fight against scientific inaccuracy and misconceptions in the public realm begins with each of us taking the time and effort to be more critical and questioning of what we read and hear, and by exposing our kids to sound experiences in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. In our celebrity-driven world, that's something we all need to take to heart.

Drug Reps Soften Their Sales Pitches By JONATHAN D. ROCKOFF

GREENSBORO, N.C.—One thing was noticeably absent from a recent visit that an Eli Lilly & Co. sales representative paid to a psychiatrist here: a sales pitch.

Michaelene Greenly provided free drug samples, a lunch of salad and iced tea, and a chance to order diagrams of how the brain works. What she didn't do: tout her drugs' benefits or ask the doctor to write more prescriptions. Nevertheless, Lilly's sales of the neuroscience drugs she promotes are rising.

"We used to come in with our own agenda: What can I accomplish today? We've turned that all around. It's what the doctor talks about," Ms. Greenly said.

Her SOFT sell reflects a major shift in how more pharmaceutical companies target physicians, as the industry remakes its commercial model in response to changing economic and regulatory conditions. Traditionally, armies of sales reps have fanned out to "detail" doctors with aggressive, well-rehearsed sales pitches and pressure to boost prescriptions. Multiple sales reps from one company might call on the same physician. That strategy over the past 15 years helped propel the industry to $300 billion in yearly U.S. sales today.

But the approach has been in flux. Physicians, under pressure from health plans to curb costs, have less time for, and patience with, persistent sales pitches. The government has been cracking down on aggressive, illegal marketing of drugs for unapproved uses. And drug makers, unable to bring enough new products to market to fully offset patent losses, have been forced to tighten belts.

As a result, the industry has slashed 33,000 sales jobs in the U.S. from its peak five years ago, when 105,000 representatives flooded the zone. Most recently, AstraZenecaPLC said it would cut its U.S. sales staff by 24%, or 1,150 jobs. The industry spent $14.5 billion on marketing in the U.S. in 2010, down about 15% from five years ago, according to Cegedim Strategic Data.

Both to adjust to and allow for these changes, some 18 of the top 40 drug makers have reorganized their sales forces to reduce duplication, one industry consultant says. In the wake of costly settlements by other drug makers over illegal marketing practices, British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline PLC stopped evaluating salespeople based on the number of prescriptions written. Instead, companies are considering how well physicians rate their representatives.

Drug makers including GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Merck & Co. and Lilly are also asking their representatives to switch from making forceful, tightly scripted sales pitches to acting more like a resource supporting physicians' treatment. Companies hope to get a foot in the door by providing practical help, such as assistance educating patients about their diseases or navigating reimbursement.

"Increasing physician satisfaction, it turns out, is a much better way to promote a pharmaceutical agent than simply telling them to write more prescriptions or what the benefits" are, said David Ricks, president of Lilly's global business unit.

Shifting gears has proven thorny in some cases, said Chris Wright of ZS Associates, a marketing and sales consulting firm. Some longtime sales representatives, used to repeating a scripted message, aren't equipped to intuit and respond to what doctors want. Promotion of drugs is highly regulated, making it tricky to give salespeople lots of leeway in what they discuss with physicians.

Also, salespeople still can't provide the one thing many doctors want above all: more time to see patients. "As pharmaceutical companies try to engage in a nicer, more pleasant way, they don't always get a positive reception because nothing is being done to solve the doctors' time problem," said Mr. Wright, who runs ZS Associates' global pharmaceuticals practice.

Physicians feel pressured to fit more patients—not sales reps—into their workdays to offset the cost-control efforts imposed by health plans. In addition, doctors feel they have lost some authority picking medicines, as health plans have learned to wield co-pays to steer use of certain drugs.

Sales representatives still pay 115 million visits to 340,000 doctors each year, and some companies and reps have kept up the old, aggressive tactics. Doctors still complain about receiving inappropriate pitches from particular firms, and many hold the pharmaceutical industry and its marketing practices in low esteem. Earlier this year, 23% of 680,000 doctors surveyed by market research firm SK&A said they refused to even see drug reps.

Eli Lilly decided to adopt its new approach after watching launches of new drugs like Strattera for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and the blood thinner Effient stumble, according to Mr. Ricks. One possible problem the company identified was a mismatch between what doctors expected based on sales pitches, and what the products delivered.

Now, the company's sales team draws marketing lessons from how Disney keeps families coming to its amusement parks. Lilly's most recent national sales meeting, held at Disney's business training institute in Florida in February, was devoted to customer service, not product training. Sales representatives watched how Animal Kingdom workers greeted families at the gate and answered questions around the attractions.

Surveys of doctors show that 85% are satisfied with Lilly, up from the 60% before the company changed ways, Mr. Ricks says. U.S. sales of antidepressant Cymbalta were $2.98 billion during the first nine months of 2011, more than $450 million higher than during the same period in 2010, according to Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions, a data firm. Strattera sales are on pace to surpass 2010's $575 million, and sales of Effient have also picked up, totaling $217 million through October, more than double 2010's tally.

Among those turned off generally by aggressive tactics in years past was psychiatrist Parish McKinney, who owns a practice in Greensboro, N.C. Some representatives took seats in her waiting room, while patients stood. She recalled some opening their laptops to review her prescription numbers, say she wasn't prescribing enough of their drugs and request she write the "next five" for their products.

Also, she said, Lilly representatives downplayed the weight gain that Dr. McKinney saw among some patients taking the company's blockbuster antipsychotic Zyprexa. The salespeople said the issue wasn't any worse than competing drugs, although Dr. McKinney experienced otherwise. They reminded her about Zyprexa's effectiveness.

"They were trying to press hard. They would not acknowledge it was a concern," Dr. McKinney said.

A company spokeswoman said Lilly always told doctors about the known risks of Zyprexa, and its original label listed weight gain as a possible side effect.

In 2007, Lilly added to Zyprexa's label a more specific warning about the potential for weight gain. Separately, Lilly agreed in 2009 to plead guilty to a misdemeanor violation of federal drug laws and pay $1.4 billion for promoting Zyprexa for treatment of dementia in elderly patients, even though the drug wasn't approved for that use.

When she began calling on Dr. McKinney two years ago, Lilly's Ms. Greenly spoke frankly about weight gain, Dr. McKinney recalled. Ms. Greenly provided data for predicting the increase and deciding whether to use another drug. Lilly made available a nutrition program to help patients manage weight gain—even if they were taking competitors' products.

"It felt more like they were starting to listen to our concerns—whether good or bad—about what we were experiencing in our office," Dr. McKinney said.

On a recent day visiting psychiatrists and nurse practitioners, Ms. Greenly, 46 years old, wore a conservative brown suit and a badge with her name and Lilly's. She is responsible for selling the company's neuroscience drugs in a broad swath of central North Carolina. The job combines her childhood dream of becoming a doctor with her college sales and marketing studies. She has worked for Lilly since 2001.

Under the drug maker's personality testing of employees, Ms. Greenly is a "red" for her outgoing, ambitious traits. Yet, she says she always chafed at the company's old, hard sells. She didn't like repeating messages like "Cymbalta is good for depression" over and over, and found that doctors tuned out such pitches.

Before the change in tactics, psychiatrist Carey Cottle Jr. says he was more likely to write prescriptions for a competing antidepressant like Pfizer Inc.'s Effexor over Cymbalta, because Lilly representatives had a "high-pressure, car sales-type approach, and it was just not appropriate." Fed up several years ago, Dr. Cottle called their Lilly manager and complained that the reps' visits were "wasting our time."

Now, Ms. Greenly's service has lifted the bias he had against prescribing Lilly medicines, Dr. Cottle says. When he had a patient who was breast-feeding, she supported his conclusion that it would be safer if the woman took the antipsychotic Risperdal instead of Lilly's Zyprexa because Risperdal had more safety data on that point.

While they ate salads and drank tea in his office, Dr. Cottle expressed concern that a severely depressed women who was finally improving on Zyprexa had gained 30 pounds. Ms. Greenly offered to inquire about enrolling the patient in Lilly's nutrition program.

She also showed him various illustrations of the brain, which he could pick from and Lilly would print for his use, explaining to patients how a drug would work. He said he'd been looking on the Web for just such diagrams. Lilly would print the pictures with Dr. Cottle's name, not the company's.

Ms. Greenly left a collection for Dr. Cottle to choose from. As she stood to walk out of the office, Dr. Cottle thanked her and asked, "When will I see you again?"

Jonathan D. Rockoff at jonathan.rockoff@wsj.com