This is a first-rate piece of magazine journalism.
The article, as much about basic stem cell science as about medical treatment, focuses on one key researcher’s efforts to advance understanding of stem cells. The article puts those efforts in the context of politics, past and current research and the potential for clinical application. It personalizes the story without generating false emotion or hope.
It’s a strong example of how journalists can educate the public about the importance and difficulties of scientific research–something that’s very useful against a backdrop of so much out-of-context, misleading reporting about the benefits and dangers of drugs and treatments. It’s particularly useful in an area where political interests have distorted some underlying scientific issues.
The story could have been made even stronger if the author had talked to politically neutral people who for scientific reasons are less sanguine about the outcomes of stem cell research.
The scientific community has endured years of having to defend the importance–indeed, the legality–of work with stem cells. This has resulted in a nearly united front in the field advancing the message that stem cell research is on the cusp of life-saving application and a transforming force in the history of medicine.
This may turn out to be accurate. It may not.
Only at the very end does the story explore the safety and efficacy issues that are important barriers to clinical application. It would have been better to have a little more of this a little earlier and to have it supplemented by an independent voice.
No treatments exist yet.
Since there are no treatments yet, this criterion is not applicable.
Near the end of the story, a paragraph states that successful treatments are not guaranteed, and that the safety of using the cells in humans has not been proven.
The paragraph mentions the possiblity that cancer may be a side effect, and that the most promising type of stem cells have not been shown to develop fully into their original counterparts.
This information comes late, but it is satisfactory.
The story does an excellent job of describing the history and current status of stem cell research. Readers understand that the evidence of any benefit is preliminary and knowledge still developing.
The story generates emotion and sense of urgency by describing how Douglas Melton’s children, who have Type 1 diabetes, could benefit from treatments that may grow out of his research.
But Melton does appear to be motivated in part by his children’s stories, and there are many other people in the same situation, hoping for clinical stem cell treatments. In this case, using those anecdotes to frame the piece is not inappropriate.
The author quotes four sources, including the subject of the story. All are experts in the field who are familiar with Melton’s and others’ research.
All of the sources have some interest in positive outcomes of the research, either personal, professional, political or [presumably] financial. The author should have indicated this.
It would have been useful to have the voice of someone who is more skeptical about the safety and imminence of stem cell therapies, but overall the sourcing is satisfactory.
The story says that Type 1 diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, two targets of stem cell therapies under development, do not have cures.
Because the story is not about the treatments, however, it is not necessary to discuss how these patients are currently treated.
The story focuses on basic stem cell research conducted in vitro and in animals. It makes clear that clinical applications are not available.
It mentions that the FDA has just approved the first small trial of stem cells in patients with severe spinal cord injuries.
The story’s detailed history and context allow a reader to appreciate what aspects of stem cell research are new and novel.
It is clear that this article did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.
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