Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org 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.

Making sense of news based on animal studies: An update to our toolkit

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:

  • It tips readers off right away, by using the word “mice” in the headline
  • It reminds readers that any application to humans is “years off”
  • It cautions that the chemical’s effects in human might be different
  • It raises the possibility that the chemical might not be safe for human use

New expanded toolkit primer

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.

You might also like

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.