HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Coming soon! The mind-cleansing drug that helps you forget all your bad memories
September 14, 2009
Even though the research is intriguing and the news story may be tongue-in-cheek, the implication of benefit to people - not mice- is misleading.
Our Review Summary
This story presents the early findings of an animal experiment that showed fear memories were erased by degrading an extracellular matrix surrounding specific nerve cells in the brain. However, it failed to remind the readers that animal studies do not necessarily guarantee that the same results will be seen in humans. Even though the research is intriguing and the news story may be tongue-in-cheek, the implication that it will be available and beneficial to humans is misleading to consumers.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story makes it clear that this “mind-cleansing” drug is not available.
Researchers have only tested chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) on animals and it's understandable that costs would not be discussed at this point.
The story begins: "Want to forget about that painful breakup? Wish you could put some troubling childhood memories out of your mind? Someday soon, it might be as easy as popping a pill." While it goes on to discuss post-traumatic disorder - a serious memory issue - the story leads by framing the memory of painful breakups as something that is a disease that should be treated. That's disease mongering.
The story provided a cursory explanation of the methodology, but failed to provide any specifics, including how the researchers measured fear in the mice. This story also fails to include the caveat that animal research does not necessarily translate to humans.
No adverse effects were reported in the research; however, the story briefly mentions the ethical and medical concerns that may be associated with a drug that erases memory.
The story makes it clear this would be a novel approach.
While the story mentions that “bad memories had been erased” in the mice, it does not provide any data or any indication of how fear manifests in a mouse. Furthermore, the story should have made it clear that is it not known if this same effect would be seen in humans.
This story does not rely on a press release, but it is largely based on a piece in the London Daily Mail. We can't be sure of the extent to which the original story may have relied on a news release.
This story provided comments from two independent sources, including a neurologist and a neuroscientist; however, they contributed only hypothetical statements. Perhaps commentary from someone in the mental health profession would have been useful. Additionally, the story may have also mentioned that this research took place in an institute associated with the pharmaceutical company, Novartis.
This story does not discuss current psychological practices to treat fear and anxiety disorders or how this new research might be relevant.
Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.