The CBS News website called HealthPop.com posted two very preliminary research stories on the same day that both needed stronger caveats if they were to be published at all. Both covered interesting research with important targets. But a few words of caution and a few words from an independent expert would have helped in each case.
One was headlined, “Stem cells restore feeling for paralyzed patients.” Excerpt:
“…promising new research from a phase 1 study conducted at the University of Zurich sponsored by StemCells, Inc. shows that six months after the implantation of neural stem cells, two out of three complete injury patients – meaning they had no neurological function below the point of injury – were able to gain some sensory function.”
Phase I studies are not designed to test efficacy. The primary purpose is to test safety. And the story didn’t interview any independent expert, quoting only a VP of a private company reporting the results. This is not the best form for reporting on paralysis research – or any research.
The other story began: “There may be hope for people who are unable to smell.” But the next line revealed, “Using gene therapy, scientists have successfully restored the sense of smell in mice that had a genetic mutation that took away their olfactory senses.”
Apparently no one was interviewed for the story – just two quotes pulled from two different news releases, one of which may have been the source for the “hope” line.
Stories about stem cells and gene therapy demand scrutiny. Better than what these two topics received in these two CBS attempts.
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 (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.
Lee Henderson
September 4, 2012 at 3:32 pmThere are Phase I trials performed in patients, like the one above, that are proof-of-concept human trials. These are typically trials that cannot be performed on nonpatient populations and do often provide indications of positive responses. In many rare and orphan diseases, a positive response is often critical to taking the drug forward. So while a phase I is a safety trial, there many, in some circumstances, be an efficacy readout, as long as one understands the limitations. The first article does reflect those limitations noting that there were only 3 total patients and two had regained ‘some’ sensory function. The second is totally bogus.
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