Jill U. Adams is a health care journalist and an associate editor at HealthNewsReview.org.
A chemical compound can “reverse aging” in mice, many news outlets recently reported, including ABC News, TIME, STAT, and The Boston Globe.
“Reports have suggested that this might someday lead to a new drug for human use,” ABC News speculated. The Boston Globe told us the lead scientist thinks the compound “could not only restore energy and vitality in humans but also increase their life expectancy.”
Ooof. Those are the kind of health news claims that make the HealthNewsReview.org team gird ourselves. Why? Because we have seen too many stories in which claims or advice for readers are based on results observed in mice or other animals (or even cells in a petri dish).
That said, we stop short of saying animal and lab studies should never appear on the health page. There are good practices to framing these stories appropriately. The ABC news story, for example, hit many marks:
To help our readers make sense of the claims, we have published an expanded primer in our toolkit: Why you should be cautious of health claims based on animal and lab studies.
In it, you’ll find an explanation of why scientists conduct animal studies, why journalists must be cautious to not overstate the findings, examples of good and bad news coverage, and tips to avoid common pitfalls when writing about animal studies.
You’ll also find a very succinct analysis from Susan Molchan, MD, in particular when she speaks about Alzheimer’s disease studies involving mice.
“They’ve cured mouseheimer’s disease I don’t know how many times now,” Molchan says.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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