A journalist-friend asked me to comment on this.
The story, in the Daily Express of the UK, finally got around to explaining that the breathless claims made in the headline and subheadline were based on research in laboratory worms.
Microscopic worms.
The story states:
“Although (the worm in question) is a long way from a human in evolutionary terms, it has been shown to mirror ageing processes in higher forms of life.
Dr Blackwell said: “That’s a strong predictor that this mechanism is relevant to people as well.”
The story also included lots of “coulds…maybes…what ifs” but not any “may nots.” For example, more excerpts, with my emphasis added:
Yes, it could or it may. If – a big if – results in people (far away from today) match those in microscopic worms. Maybe the story should include some “may not lead to” or “may not impact” caveats.
FYI: Here’s the Joslin Diabetes Center news release on the work emanating from its laboratory. You can quickly see that quotes appearing in the Daily Express story are lifted directly from the institutional news release.
That is not good journalism, especially when there are no independent perspectives in the story.
A paper, published in Nature this week, is what kicked off the food chain – leading to the Joslin news release, which led to the news coverage.
In 2015, we’ll be taking a closer look at the contamination of this food chain of dissemination of research news to the general public. This is a prime example.
Stay tuned.
————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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 (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Mary M
December 18, 2014 at 8:21 amIt’s already been covered. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
I think that pretty much captures the whole thing.
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