Joy Victory is Deputy Managing Editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @thejoyvictory.
Each week, the staff at HealthNewsReview.org collectively spends hours scanning news releases and news stories, assessing them for accuracy and importance to the general public.
Our faithful readers know we often gnaw away at headlines involving rodent research. As we’ve said time and again, when it comes to medical studies involving mice and other critters, what happens to them won’t necessarily happen to us–and it’s vital that news releases make that point emphatically. But they often don’t, as we noted in these reviews of news releases:
In all these cases, you had to read deep into the news releases to discover the research is on rodents–not people. To us, that’s inexcusable, because it encourages journalists to do the same, leaving the general public poorly informed.
This week, though, a cute tweet and news release from Emory University involving rodent research Wednesday had me dropping my acorn–yet for all the right reasons. Take a look, and I’ll wait as you let out an awwwwwwww:
#Emory researchers closer to cracking neural code of love, with the help of smitten prairie voles https://t.co/x1X8VKKOkD pic.twitter.com/K1DGDOjCmd
— Emory University (@EmoryUniversity) June 1, 2017
The image and the tweet make it screamingly clear: This isn’t about humans. It’s about rodents. Romantic, possibly robotic, rodents.
I have a feeling if more PR teams were that upfront–and clever–about their preclinical animal research, we’d see better news coverage as a result. It’s going to be real hard for a journalist to skim that news release and ignore who the study subjects are.
Curious to know how they came up with the idea, I contacted staff at Emory University to find out. I was pleasantly surprised at how thoughtful the process was.
“This is about bonding, so I thought to have the circuits look like hearts, not too much because these voles are not in love, but bonding does share similarities to love, so the circuits are rudimentary hearts but recognizable,” said Larry Young, Emory University’s Director of the Silvio O. Conte Center for Oxytocin and Social Cognition, via email. “We are studying in this paper neural circuitry of bonding caused by mating. The node of some of the circuits are emitting light, representing the laser light stimulation used in the optogenetics.”
And, well, about those cute cuddling voles, he said they wanted them to “look as they may be mating, and enjoying it, but not be obviously mating. More suggestive.”
It’s a terrific lure–and it appears to have worked. Take a peek at these headlines–which all use “vole” in the headline, a pleasing fact for us:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Many of the principles that we promoted to journalists and to the general public from 2006-18 are embodied in this terrific project based in Oslo. https://t.co/KO1o9JTYK7
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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.
Comments are closed.
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