HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Scientists reverse diabetes in monkeys
February 19, 2006
There is new hope tonight for millions of people with diabetes. It stems from a key discovery made at the University of Minnesota. Research with animals has uncovered a potential life changing treatment for humans. ... Ryan must take insulin regularly because he lacks the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. Now imagine if you could take those cells from pigs and transplant them. Dr. Bernard Herring did just that, by putting insulin producing cells from pigs in to monkeys.
Our Review Summary
This television story on pig islet cells being transplanted into monkeys makes a huge leap from a finding in 12 monkeys (some of which rejected the transplant) to "hope for millions of people with diabetes." And it uses the predictable television approach of finding an 8-year old diabetic and his parents who talk about this being "a huge step." The story delivered no details of the research findings, didn't quantify the results or the length of followup. In projecting possible human use, the story failed to address potential risks or costs. If a story is going to project potential benefits, it should offer the balance of potential harms and costs. And it is a critical omission to leave out any mention of potential side effects from powerful immune-suppressing drugs. Finally, it is bad practice for journalists to pass along predictions of being three years away from human testing without giving a basis for that prediction. But that is also a flaw in a single-source story when no independent expert opinion is sought.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Story explains that human testing is three years away, but that doesn't allow for any safe prediction of when "experiment" becomes "therapy" and when it would be available for humans. The history of "promising" animal research that didn't pan out in the transition to human use is long and deep. The story could have made that clear. The story only includes a line from the researcher about more research needed "to make this type of therapy safe." First, for now it's an experiment in animals, not a therapy in humans. So it's not just safety that needs to be shown; it's effectiveness in people. That note should be emphasized, not hidden.
No projection of cost was given. Some comparison could have been made based on the current costs of human-to-human islet cell transplants, but the story virtually ignored that angle.
The story says there is "new hope..for millions of people with diabetes." But even the University's news release frames this in the context of "tens of thousands of people with difficult-to-manage diabetes." How did the journalist make the leap from "difficult-to-manage" diabetes to millions?
The story provides no data on the trial. Viewers should know this was done in only a dozen monkeys and the followup time was only six months. Some monkeys rejected the cell transplants. These are critical facts. If you're going to cover animal research and make the leap to possible use in humans, it's important to tell the whole story.
As stated above, no details of the study were given.
The story provides no context for the history of human islet cell transplants, which are not uncommon. It's not islet cell transplants that are new; it's using an animal source that would be new. But even that is not new; other animal-to-animal islet cell transplants have been done.
As stated above, no details of the study were given.
There is no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release. But there is also no evidence that any journalistic research or exploration took place.
Only the lead researcher was interviewed. No independent expert opinion was used.
Except for a brief mention at the very end, the story seems to ignore islet cell or pancreas transplants from human donors. In addition, there is no discussion of the possible harms and risks from a pig cell islet transplant.
Total Score: 0 of 9 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.