Read Original Story

Nanotech robots deliver gene therapy through blood


3 Star

Nanotech robots deliver gene therapy through blood

Our Review Summary

The story highlights the very early and incomplete results of a Phase 1 study of the use of nanoparticles to deliver small interfering RNA to tumor cells in three subjects with melanoma.  This approach to the treatment of cancer  is new and these early results suggest the model may be of value.  However, the story does not note that the report in the journal Nature was in fact a letter to the editor and not a full study report.  The results are preliminary and have not been presented or subjected to peer review.  As such, some level of conservatism would seem appropriate in reporting.  However, the story uses phrases that provide the reader with an inflated impression of the results to date. 


Why This Matters

The semantics are important in a story about such an early research report.  Using words like "early proof"…"might work in people"…"suggesting the RNA had done its job" is troublesome.  Even the headline – "robots deliver gene therapy through the blood" – is misleading.  It’s not a therapy until it’s proven to work. This is an experiment, not a therapy, at this point.

Malignant melanoma has proven to be a difficult disease to treat especially in later stages.  The availability of a new approach to the disease would be welcomed.   But what is a person with melanoma supposed to take home from a story like this?


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

No costs discussed, but we can understand why given the very early stage of this research. Not applicable in this case.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Three sentences from the end, the story says the lead investigator "could not say whether the therapy helped shrink tumors." For that, we’ll give the story a hesitant satisfactory grade on this criterion.

Yet, at the top, the story said this was "early proof that a new treatment approach…might work in people."  Indeed, there isn’t much you can say at all after tests on three tumor samples.

One thing you can say is that there isn’t any evidence yet of an impact on outcomes that people really care about – impact on longevity or quality of life, for example.  For comparison, a story on The placed this high in the story in the third paragraph: 

"It remains to be seen whether the new therapy improves patient outcomes."

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story says this was a phase 1 clinical trial – the main purpose of which is to determine safety of an experimental intervention.  Yet the story says the lead investigator could not say if there were any safety concerns.  Huh?  We can understand not leaping to conclusions after tests on just three tumor samples (although, as noted,  the story tended to do anyway), but shouldn’t the story have at least probed for potential safety concerns with this approach? 

In fact, the use of siRNA in experiments like this is in its infancy and as such little is known about the existing side effect profile.  High on the list is the potential for the agent to have unexpected and non specific effects called off-targeting.  Off-targeting is the potential largest liability of the approach, possibly resulting in inadvertent turning off or on of non-targeted genes.  This collateral damage is a significant challenge to the use of siRNA even with nano-directed treatments.  A more balanced story would have noted the potential downside of the approach.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

This is the major failing of the piece.  This story was crying out for caveats – and we got none.  "Early proof that a new treatment approach…might work in people"?  Proof?  Some early evidence, perhaps.  But not proof!  Not after tests on three peoples’ tumor samples. 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  No discussion of melanoma in any detail.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

No independent sources interviewed in the story.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story acknowledged that other research teams are exploring using fats or lipids to reach the target. 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

An astute reader can probably figure out that this experimental approach isn’t available yet.  But the story never really says that.  Instead, rather than calling it an "experimental approach," the story calls it a treatment approach.  We think the semantics are important.  It’s not a treatment yet.  It’s an experiment.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The novelty of this approach is discussed appropriately.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


The story says it relied on a telephone interview, so that’s not a news release.

Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.