What a flashback! 21 years ago, National Cancer Institute researcher Steven Rosenberg became a media darling because of his work with Interleukin-2 against cancer. Magazine covers, newspaper headlines, Today show appearances. Much of it hype.
Yesterday a new media feeding frenzy was kicked off when the journal Science published a Rosenberg (et al) paper about remissions in two people with advanced melanoma using genetically altered white blood cells from the patients themselves. The 15 other people in the trial died.
The Knight Science Journalism Tracker website comments on the variation in the way journalists covered the story:
“Gene therapy has failed so many times to live up the hype of a generation ago (much of it abetted by journalists) that good reporters are usually cautious in writing about it. So it was that some who covered this put the experimentâs limitations ahead of its achievements. The Baltimore Sunâs Michael Stroh, for example, wrote a lede that started: âIn a small studyâ¦â? Lauran Neergaard of the AP went with a more upbeat lede: âGovernment scientists turned regular blood cells into tumor attackers that wiped out all signs of cancer in two men with advanced melanoma,â? but followed with a second graf that started âButâ? and said the treatment failed in 15 others.
A sampling: The Washington Postâs David Brown was careful to note that none of the scientists would claim the two patients were cured, a verdict that would have to wait at least five years; however, Karen Kaplan, writing in the Los Angeles times, called the treatment a âcure.â? Sabin Russell in the San Francisco Chronicle appropriately called the study âtinyâ?; Joe Palca had a good backgrounder-cum-news story on NPR Thursday afternoon; The Telegraphâs Roger Highfield in the UK was unusually upbeat, spinning a heartwarming anecdote of one patient in whom the treatment worked through nine paragraphs before telling his readers that the treatment failed in 15 others.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Janet
September 29, 2006 at 7:30 amIt is true that gene therapy is a risky procedure, and unforeseen things can happen. But gene therapy beholds the future for many diseases like diabetes. Get going.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like