Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.

How to report on preliminary Alzheimer’s research results

Gary Schwitzer is Publisher of He Tweets as @garyschwitzer, or under our project signature, @HealthNewsRevu.

Mouse 410x273The (Minneapolis) Star Tribune published a fairly good example of how to inform, but not mislead or cheerlead, when reporting about early Alzheimer’s research results.

Let’s start with the headline and subhead:

Alzheimer’s researchers at University of Minnesota reverse memory loss in mice

The research could lead to new treatments for humans, but that would be 10 years away.

Yes, it probably only made news because it was about a local research effort in Minneapolis.  Chances are this wouldn’t have been reported by the Star Tribune if it had come out of the University of Wisconsin, just a few hours away.

But there was no hometown cheerleading.

Instead, the story included:

  • Caveats from the researcher herself:  “…but it’s a 10-year process even if we’re successful.”
  • Caveat from a scientific director for the Alzheimer’s Association: “One has to remember that this [research] is on mice,” he said. “We have, unfortunately, successfully treated mice and rats for years, and that hasn’t translated to humans. So for a treatment, there’s still a long way to go.”
  • Caveat from an independent expert: “The idea of reversal of memory loss, quite frankly, is wishful thinking at the present time,” said Dr. David Knopman, an Alzheimer’s specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester.”

Finally, since it is often how a story starts and how it ends that makes an impact on readers, the ending also provided context and caution with a final quote from the researcher:

“You have to test it in animals first to make sure it works, make sure it’s safe,” she said, before even testing it on people. That’s why, she said, even if all goes well, it will be years “before there would be a pill that you could get from the pharmacy.”

So the story left little doubt about context:  interesting research from a researcher with an interesting track record, but nowhere near any human application or implication.

It didn’t seem like a Herculean effort for the paper to report it in this way, but it stands apart from a lot of what we see in Alzheimer’s disease (and other health care news) reporting – or in PR news releases.  For example:

You might also like


We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Comments are closed.