On TIME.com today, “New Hormone Discovered That Curbs Weight Gain, Diabetes Just Like Exercise.”
Here’s a fun little reader survey:
Should the fact that this research was only done in mice be:
Ideally should the story link to:
Do you think anyone at TIME.com:
The story uses this quote: “This represents a major advance in the identification of new treatments for age-related diseases such as diabetes,” said Dr. Pinchas Cohen, senior author of the study. Do you think that quote:
When the story finally explains in the final sentence that this was in mice, it states: “While tests were only administered on mice, the necessary mechanisms are present in all mammals, humans included.” Do you think that:
Do you think that this is the way that news about weight gain, diabetes and exercise should be delivered to the public, meaning people, not mice?
———————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
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 (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Pat Bowne
March 4, 2015 at 6:41 pmI’ve about decided to have ‘we can cure this in mice’ carved on my tombstone.
Greg P
March 4, 2015 at 6:45 pmIdeally the story would prominently disclose the financial conflicts of interest of the study’s authors. This was mentioned obliquely in the press release (“the MOTS-c intellectual property has been licensed to a biotechnology company”). But somehow this did not make it into the Time article despite extensive copying of the rest of the press release.
Louisa Dell'Amico
March 9, 2015 at 12:04 pmI think all research studies should reveal the species of its subjects in the first paragraph.
Daniel Pendick
March 9, 2015 at 1:10 pmYes, this is a curious case. It’s hard to understand why it could not be mentioned in passing high in the story that this is a mouse study, then follow up later with more explanation (a single sentence) saying that although many important new drug targets are discovered in mice, they often–usually!–don’t pan out in research with people. That doesn’t take a lot of space, and it puts the finding in the proper perspective for the reader, e.g., “This is interesting and potentially important, but it’s experimental and preliminary so don’t get too worked up just yet.”
Maybe HNR should start a new “…In Mice” award category.
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