June 5, 2017

Say awwwwwwww: Here’s how to publicize rodent research accurately and adorably

Posted By

Tags

animal research, animal studies, mice studies, mouse studies, rodent studies

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:

Comments

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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.