Science and medicine in mainstream media

sullivlo

Prompted by thoughts I hadn't whilst reading the thread on vaccines, I thought I'd ask what people thought about science and medicine in the media?

It seems that every day there is a new cure for cancer, or a new food to avoid eating because it causes cancer. I understand that clickbait sells, but should there be an obligation to report the facts rather than a snazzy headline? I don't mean to only provide scientific data, but to inject a bit of realism into the discussion.

For example: "miracle cure for triple negative breast cancer discovered", but its only if you properly read the article that you discover that it's only been completed in mice, and is potentially ~12 years away from being marketable. If it's even safe and effective.

Should there be an obligation to put the facts before the story?

Whispered

I don't think it would work. You will get people who will believe whatever they want to. Mainstream media maybe could be obliged to report facts but what about bloggers, any nut job with access to the Internet can set themselves up as an expert.
I also don't like the idea of controlling what media says. Yes this would be a good reason but I think it sets a dangerous precedent. And of course if you oblige anyone to report anything in a certain way, a lot of people will automatically suspect anything reported.

palmcut

sullivlo wrote: »

Prompted by thoughts I hadn't whilst reading the thread on vaccines, I thought I'd ask what people thought about science and medicine in the media?

It seems that every day there is a new cure for cancer, or a new food to avoid eating because it causes cancer. I understand that clickbait sells, but should there be an obligation to report the facts rather than a snazzy headline? I don't mean to only provide scientific data, but to inject a bit of realism into the discussion.

For example: "miracle cure for triple negative breast cancer discovered", but its only if you properly read the article that you discover that it's only been completed in mice, and is potentially ~12 years away from being marketable. If it's even safe and effective.

Should there be an obligation to put the facts before the story?

If only; journalist accuracy, now there's an oxymoron.

Icemancometh

I sometimes buy the Daily Mail on Tuesday because of the health supplement. It's interesting to see what some patients are reading about diseases and treatments.

Kurtosis

sullivlo wrote: »

Prompted by thoughts I hadn't whilst reading the thread on vaccines, I thought I'd ask what people thought about science and medicine in the media?

It seems that every day there is a new cure for cancer, or a new food to avoid eating because it causes cancer. I understand that clickbait sells, but should there be an obligation to report the facts rather than a snazzy headline? I don't mean to only provide scientific data, but to inject a bit of realism into the discussion.

For example: "miracle cure for triple negative breast cancer discovered", but its only if you properly read the article that you discover that it's only been completed in mice, and is potentially ~12 years away from being marketable. If it's even safe and effective.

Should there be an obligation to put the facts before the story?

I think we need to look a little closer to home before blaming the media for misleading news stories. There was a study published in the BMJ a few years back that examined press releases from top UK universities on medical/health research and found that advice to change behaviour, causal claims, and inference to humans from animal research were each exaggerated in about a third of cases. They also found that if the press release was exaggerated, it didn't significantly increase the chances of the research receiving news coverage but did have a huge effect on whether any news coverage also contained exaggerated claims. The study is available here.

What I would like to see the media do that would help with communication of research findings would be to provide a link/reference to the research publication being reported on, or at least enough information to allow it to be easily searched for.

Arbie

A major problem with science journalism is that even if the journalists are skeptics and scientifically literate, their editors probably are not. A friend of mine is a newspaper editor, his whole team are aware of the issues and report responsibly, but he has worked at other esteemed publications where the editorial view is simplistic and sensationalist. PR depts at universities and hospitals are also at fault as they tend to spin things and oversimplify papers to the point where some press releases are almost unrecognisable to the researchers themselves!

Unfortunately some think that science is only exciting if it is outrageous and dramatic (this drug will cure cancer, that food product will cause MS, etc.) when in fact science is an incremental, deliberative, and self-correcting process that requires engagement and understanding to be able to appreciate. It would be very helpful if journalists would be more critical, would cite sources, and if editors would be more responsible with headlines.

I find the BBC generally has a good approach. They will report an important/interesting new finding, usually with a few lines from an interview with the scientist involved, and they will often end the piece with a cautionary or even contradictory statement from another expert source. It's usually quite balanced.

joe40

I used to enjoy reading the "bad science" column in the guardian a few years ago. It was written by a medical doctor and he addressed this very issue. He had particular critism for the " you are what you eat"' presentet (forgotten her name) he once got the same nutrition qualification as her for his dead cat.

CramCycle

Whispered wrote: »

I also don't like the idea of controlling what media says.

Neiter do I but i do think there should be, there is the office of the press ombudsman but I don't think they get involved unless someone reports it. Alot of media clearly need to change their reports to opinion pieces, and their journalists to columnists.

Kurtosis wrote: »

I think we need to look a little closer to home before blaming the media for misleading news stories. There was a study published in the BMJ a few years back that examined press releases from top UK universities on medical/health research and found that advice to change behaviour, causal claims, and inference to humans from animal research were each exaggerated in about a third of cases. They also found that if the press release was exaggerated, it didn't significantly increase the chances of the research receiving news coverage but did have a huge effect on whether any news coverage also contained exaggerated claims. The study is available here. 100% agree, several Irish universities are no different. This I feel has more to do with the current state of scientific funding where it seems to go more to the popular and media friendly than the good scientists. I feel that alot of places no longer give enough to reproduciblity and often use popular science to report on something that would not get through peer review so as to stay in front for funding purposes. I have seen one paper talking about a cure for type 1 diabetes, but when you read the scientific paper, it just referred to changes in inflammatory markers during starvation and in no way indicated a cure for type 1 diabetes, not even remotely.

What I would like to see the media do that would help with communication of research findings would be to provide a link/reference to the research publication being reported on, or at least enough information to allow it to be easily searched for.

the problem here is that only those of us with a background might take uand understand such papers, in the same way I could not pick up a theoretical physics paper after a claim about time travel in the Indo and tell if it was even remotely indicated, i would not expect someone not in the field to know if that is what is truly said.