The following is a guest blog post from one of our new contributors, Alan Cassels, who is an author, journalist, and drug policy researcher with an interest in how clinical research and experience on pharmaceuticals gets translated for policy-makers, prescribers and consumers.
———————
Sometimes a news story feels like a scientific conference. Half the time you’re wandering around an exhibit area with cavernous ceilings, chatting with plenty of well-dressed, attractive salespeople, while helping yourself to freebies. The dazzling eye-candy exhibits, music and buzz, carries the promotional tones of breakthrough’, game-changer’ and incredible scientific advance,’ a vibe that might hit the spot but is not the main reason you’re there. You’ve come for the real deal – the part that is serious and scientific, delivered in a dark auditorium by a bow-tied, grey-haired academic who begs the audience not to get too excited about his team’s unpublished, preliminary results from their small trial of a new therapy. He’s the opposite of flash, but has the halo of truthiness you’ve come looking for.
One never actually ventures out of the exhibit hall when reading this article on USA Today’s website about a vaccine trial for patients with “triple negative” breast cancer, described as a “major breakthrough.” (The story actually comes from a Gannett-owned TV station in Jacksonville. USA Today is owned by Gannett.) The article focuses on research coming from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville Florida, which is planning a clinical trial of a vaccine that can “wake up the immune system” and fights cancer cells that may need mopping up after a person has had regular chemotherapy.
There are sufficient facts to propel the narrative: triple-negative breast cancer strikes up to 20 percent of breast cancer patients, and is not treatable with estrogen-targeting drugs so patients are only left with the one thing they all loathe: chemotherapy. The reporter of the TV piece embedded in the online story, herself a breast cancer survivor, captured the excitement of the possibility of the vaccine by saying: “if this works, it could be a game changer.”
Hope and excitement are a good part of any story, but an outside perspective is absolutely mandatory. This story had none. No context, no caveats, no down-to-earth commentary that says: “we’ve been searching for a breast cancer vaccine for over 20 years and, sorry to say, we’ve got nothing to show for it.” Sadly, many patients and clinicians have watched this show before, offered a breakthrough that ends in disappointment. Don’t believe me? This article begins with the hopeful line: “Research on vaccines for cancer has exploded in the past five years.” Its date? 1997.
The story undoubtedly has a special resonance for the USA Today staff who lost one of its star reporters to breast cancer. That story, delivered in a heartrending sidebar, tells about the life of Olivia Barker, a USA Today reporter who wowed her colleagues with her adventurous, entertaining reporting. Dead at 40 from “triple negative” breast cancer.
I don’t mind the music, the pizazz or having my heart strings strummed like a cheap ukulele. I do, however, mind that these kinds of stories seem only about wowing patients and investors with glitzy new research. I want more. I want the guy with the bow tie, telling me in hushed tones that we have to be careful what we are promising because, er, well, um, sometimes, (especially when we’re talking breast cancer vaccines) those promises can’t be kept. And the “major breakthrough that could be coming” never arrives. Let’s at least do the trial first before jumping to conclusions.
The science is important. It deserved a calmer analysis, and it demanded some independent perspectives.
————————-
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
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.
Karen
February 5, 2015 at 10:53 pmThank you for this.
TNCB Fighter
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