September 25, 2012

Young woman with breast cancer reacts to Nature study news coverage

Posted By

Tags

When I saw some of the news coverage of the breast-cancer-genetics study published in Nature this week, I wanted to hear the perspective of a smart young woman who had breast cancer. I didn’t have to look far. Mandy Stahre, PhD, is one of our story reviewers. She started helping us while she was still a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. She’s now an Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Officer at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Washington state. Here are her comments:

———————————————

I sit here rolling my eyes as I hear the latest round of news stories touting a “breakthrough” or “cure” for breast cancer based on a recent Nature article. I’m not saying research isn’t important, but the media grasps onto any sort of advancement in basic science as the next sure thing for curing cancer. For many breast cancer advocates, myself included, the information contained in the recent Nature article is not new. Many of us have been attending conferences (alongside health journalists) in the past year in which these results have been presented. Missing from the media hype is the caution that an advancement in the knowledge or basic science does not translate into a change in treatment. Treatment for breast cancer will not change today, tomorrow, and possibly won’t change at all based on the recent findings. Clinical trials, pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies, these are just some of the players that must work together to test, approve, create, and market any sort of new treatment. It takes time, and unfortunately, reporting that new cures are just around the corner does nothing but give false hope to many cancer patients. Frankly, using the word “cure” with regards to cancer in health journalism should be a clear sign that the writer of the article doesn’t even possess a simple understanding of what it takes to develop new cancer treatments.

This recent media hype causes my cynical side to show. I can’t help it, this is what happens when you are diagnosed with cancer at a young age. October is fast approaching and with it, the “pink washing” of America. I can’t help but think the Nature study results splashed all over the media will be used as “proof” that consumers can make a difference in the fight against breast cancer, not by lobbying their congressmen to increase funding for breast cancer research, but by buying some awful Pepto Bismol-colored hand mixer. Frankly, if companies were interested in donating to help fight breast cancer, then why don’t they just donate the money anyway instead of making consumers buy a pink product? And in reality, did any pink product really help fund the current study described in Nature, probably not.

———

Publisher’s addendum: a journalist pointed out the refreshingly different coverage provided by NPR — http://m.npr.org/story/161710858?url=/blogs/health/2012/09/24/161710858/scientists-parse-genes-of-breast-cancers-four-major-types

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.

Jody Schoger

September 25, 2012 at 10:55 am

Thank you so much for writing on this. There is nothing more disturbing than sound byte headlines when you are carrying a cancer diagnosis. The best thing possible is to do what you’re doing: continue to educate others and ask the tough questions.

If’s difficult, as a survivor, not to become cynical, especially as October approaches. Sometimes I’d like to pull the blanket over my head and jump from directly from September 30 to Thanksgiving. Yogurt lids “for the cure” aren’t going to get us where we need to go.

Thanks again,
Jody

Emily

September 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Thank you for addressing the “false hope” that the media provides to readers and viewers. As a breast cancer survivor in the making – I was diagnosed in May and am currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments – I have been dreading October. Before I was diagnosed I thought I knew a sufficient amount about this disease and the research to find a cure. Sadly, I was mistaken and have come to understand how much money is put into the “pink wash” and “educating” women about what they need to do once they have the disease rather than finding out what makes this disease tick.

Thank you,

Emily

Pat Battaglia

October 1, 2012 at 10:32 am

Well said, Mandy. It is hard for me, living in the aftermath of a breast cancer diagnosis, to see the disease used as a marketing tool during the month of October. Breast cancer is ugly and devastating on so many levels, and consumer products displaying pink ribbons leave me feeling exploited. At least as bad as the plethora of feel-good products are feel-good news stories that raise false hope. They come and they go, and they never live up to their promise. Voices like yours, honestly and intelligently speaking the truth about this diagnosis, need to be heard.

Dee Sparacio

October 1, 2012 at 12:41 pm

Thank you for making so many good points regarding the research in Nature. As a recurrent ovarian cancer survivor I too get upset with the pink hype and am nervous when my Teal sisters want to emulate those campaigns. I would rather concentrate on funds going to research and convincing companies to support young researchers than having teal ribboned food or cleaning products.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.