I live in the Twin Cities, so I couldn’t avoid hearing about the University of Minnesota research paper in Nature this week, “APOBEC3B is an enzymatic source of mutation in breast cancer.” Had I lived anywhere else, I probably wouldn’t have heard anything about it.
This laboratory finding was reported by the CBS TV station, WCCO, as “a big breakthrough in breast cancer.” As so often happens with TV health news stories reported by someone who doesn’t cover health/medicine fulltime, it is not the taped scripted segment that causes problems. It is the live chit-chat before and after the taped piece. In that chit-chat, the reporter said:
“We’re talking about real results in a couple of years from now but nonetheless the researchers say this is still a big deal.” (My note: Mind you, this was a laboratory finding.)
“The researchers would like to see more testing, first in animals, then in humans, and then hopefully a clinical trial in years to come.” (My note: this is where/when any “real results” would start to come in. And, FYI, the human trials ARE the clinical trials. Those are not separate stages.)
The anchor asked:
“In terms of breast cancer breakthroughs, where would this rank?”
The reporter hedged before saying:
“The researchers hope it’s a really high breakthrough.” (My note: What would a “low” breakthrough be?)
Results of a Google search suggest that the paper received very little attention elsewhere. In one story, a UK professor wisely said:
“There’s a long way to go before we get a handle on the cancer’s true genetic complexity, let alone turn this into treatments to help patients.”
The Minnesota Daily newspaper actually used the word “cure” four times in its story about this laboratory-only finding, including in its headline.
A veteran health care reporter for the Star Tribune delivered a far more measured story.
The words used in health care stories matter. See my article, “The 7 Words You Shouldn’t Use in Medical News,” from more than a decade ago. “Cure” and “breakthrough” are two of the words that patients nominated for inclusion on that list.
———————————
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
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.
Greg Pawelski
February 8, 2013 at 11:49 amThis is what happens when you simply try to find a mutation and then develop or pick an appropriately targeted drug. It seems like a nice idea, however, not every key that looks like it will fit a lock will actually turn it. There are numerous common or even uncommon mutations in various tumor types, but they don’t know that all those mutations are going to turn out to be relevant, as many of them are essentially bystanders.
Anyone familiar with cellular biology knows that having the genetic sequence of a known gene (genotype) does not equate to having the disease state (phenotype) represented by that gene. It requires specific cellular triggers and specialized cellular mechanisms to literally translate the code into the work horse of the cellular world – proteins.
Cells are routinely broken up by mechanical and enzymatic (APOBEC3B) means, which alters their subsequent behavior. Some methods like cell-lines have limited analysis only to isolated tumor cells and fail to incorporate the crucial contribution of non-tumorous elements to the cancer phenomenon.
But I guess the publicity helps to get more research funding.
Jim Handman
February 11, 2013 at 11:36 amGary – although you are right to criticise the press for using words such as “breakthrough” or “cure”, I think the blame needs to be spread to the researchers themselves. In this case, the actual scientists who did the research used the words “breakthrough” and “cure”. And I think it is asking a lot of some local reporter, with little expertise in medical reporting, to be critical or skeptical of the researcher’s own conclusions. I’d like to see more critical reviews of the scientists and their own press releases. It’s not just the media’s fault.
Gary Schwitzer
February 11, 2013 at 11:49 amJim,
Thanks for your note.
I agree with you that “it’s not just the media’s fault.”
And if I worked for a journal or for an academic medical center, I’d push harder to try to reform the language that is used by researchers and scientists.
But I’m just an old journalist. So our primary focus is on improving health care journalism. And if a local reporter has little expertise in medical reporting, then I hold the news organization responsible for assigning that person, for not providing sufficient training or sufficient editing. In cases like this, harm can be done by misleading people. You’ll notice that I never mentioned the individual reporters’ names. I hold the news organization responsible at the highest level.
One additional note: I’d love to launch a project parallel to our existing project, but one that would review health care/medical science news releases – sort of a HealthNewsRELEASEReview.org. Hoping for future funding to allow us to do that. But even at our current level, we frequently criticize the language used in health/medical/science news releases, in journal articles, and in the words chosen by researchers to describe their own work.
Jim Handman
February 11, 2013 at 11:55 amBrilliant! That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking about as well. Keep in touch.
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