When the journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine published a paper, “Maternal occupation and the risk of birth defects: an overview from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study,” Reuters Health was ready to report on it.
But when the published study stated, for example, that “The results of this study indicate that women working as janitors have a significantly increased risk of giving birth to a child with (certain birth defects),” Reuters Health understandably and appropriately asked the authors to provide the absolute numbers.
Reuters Health executive editor Ivan Oransky told me: “I even went as far as doing my own calculations based on some of the tables (in the published study), and having the reporter run it by them to make sure I was getting it right.” Oransky said the author responded: “We do not express our results in these terms. …We do not feel it is prudent to publish the sentence below based on these results.” (The researcher is referring to a sentence that Reuters drafted including the absolute risk calculations that Reuters did on its own.)
So Oransky decided it wasn’t prudent to publish a story on the study.
Good for Reuters Health. This little episode raises several important points in my mind:
Researchers love to get publicity for their work. If they don’t take the time to answer basic statistical questions about their work, then their work shouldn’t be publicized.
This study received federal government support. The authors displayed a pretty smug attitude for folks getting taxpayer support for their work.
Journals should take some responsibility as well. This particular journal published a bold sidebar box labeled, “What This Paper Adds.” The “significantly increased risk” language appears in that box. The journal chose to highlight that finding. Why didn’t the journal demand the absolute numbers? Will that journal do anything about a published author refusing to provide data to a reputable news organization?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Paul Scott
January 19, 2010 at 8:14 pmI love this story. What heroes! I think that Ben Goldacre should get some credit. He has been leading the charge in the UK to make Everyman Science Literacy a basic fact of readership, or at the very least reporting.
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