I’ve written before about The Daily Show’s criticism of journalists trying to get away with saying anything in headlines or teases, simply by putting a question mark after it. Past examples:
Can Your Purse Make You Sick?
Pomegranates Prevent Breast Cancer?
Fountain of Youth?
It happened again this week, this time in print, and in a very odd context. As a followup to all of the news coverage of the latest study raising some questions about what cell phones might do to our brains, the Wall Street Journal posted a blog piece headlined, “Could Cell Phones Be Used To Treat Depression?” Excerpt:
“..if there aren’t harmful effects, the ability to induce brain activity could actually be a good thing. Cell phones potentially could be used therapeutically, as a non-invasive tool to interact with brain rhythms or stimulate parts of the brain that aren’t working optimally, according to Reto Huber, a professor at the University Children’s Hospital Zurich who also has studied electromagnetic fields and cell phone use but wasn’t involved with the new JAMA study.
There are already brain stimulation techniques for depression, like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, aka shock therapy) and transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS. The amount of additional brain activity induced by cell phones — about 7% to 8% — is on par with the amount of increased brain activity currently induced by TMS, according to Volkow. So perhaps one day cell phones could be hand-held brain stimulation devices, she says.”
If readers brains aren’t spinning from holding up their cellphones too close for too long, they might be spinning from the lack of evidence given to support such a projection. As for the comparison to TMS, don’t jump to conclusions about that either. Read a past review of news coverage on that.
The Wall Street Journal piece appeared on a health blog – not a science-of-tomorrow blog. “Potentially could be used therapeutically” and “perhaps one day could be” are projections based on absolutely no therapeutic evidence. And we think the blog post should have said that.
The WSJ wasn’t alone in this. The Los Angeles Times health blog stated:
“But Dr. Nora Volkow, the JAMA study’s lead author, suggested a far less ominous take on the JAMA findings. That cellphones’ electromagnetic energy stimulates activity in nearby brain cells may one day suggest therapeutic uses for electromagnetic energy, she said in an interview. After all, transcranial magnetic stimulation, which temporarily suppresses or “jams” activity in brain cells nearby, is widely used in neuroscience research, and is being studied in the treatment of depression, epilepsy and even in halting eyelid spasms. Deep-brain stimulation is considered a promising treatment for some stubborn forms of depression.”
This cell phone story has been bouncing around for more than 20 years. Readers certainly need clear analysis of potential harms. And we wonder why it’s even worth confusing the issue with projections of potential benefits – in the total absence of any evidence.
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.
Ken Leebow
February 25, 2011 at 10:53 amI know this is an over-simplification, however, it’s a good idea to ignore the “research of the day” report – frequently contradictory and a misdirection toward leading a healthy lifestyle.
Here’s a good cartoon that addresses research … http://bit.ly/g3eHJL
Larry Husten
February 25, 2011 at 11:19 amI don’t want to defend the headline but it should be noted that it was written, I think, at least partly as a response to the overwhelming number of news reports about the cell phone study which brought up yet again the specter of cell phones causing brain cancer. I haven’t looked but I suspect many of those news stories also used question marks in the headline, and I suspect the level of evidence is about the same (ie, nil) for both propositions.
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