While the story might have been clearer about potential problems and obstacles that may be ahead for turning this laboratory work in mice into something of potential value in humans, it was an interesting story about a novel laboratory outcome.
The goals of cancer treatment have broadened beyond simply reducing deaths from cancer to preserving quality of life, including the potential for future fertility. This work reports initial success with a laboratory procedure that could be a first step in a novel strategy to protect reproductive potential in boys treated for cancer prior to puberty.
Not applicable. This was a story about a laboratory result and while it did not contain information about costs, discussion about cost would have been premature.
The story didn’t explain how often the experiment was done in mice, the rate of success, etc.
The story mentioned that additional work assessing safety was needed without going into the potential harms to young boys who might have biopsy samples taken, sample viability issues that might arise from the long term frozen storage, or the possible legal morass about ownership of the samples (patient only?, parents or other family members of the patient?). It would have only required another line or so to help readers think more deeply about the unknown potential harms.
The story used the term ‘breakthrough’ to describe the experiment but did not provide sufficient framework to back that up. We didn’t learn how often the work was successful, in how many mice, etc.
The story did state: “The commentary authors wrote that further work on the technique’s safety would be needed before it would be ready for clinical use.” But it didn’t say anything about the need to replicate the results in other labs. More than just safety, the efficacy of the approach in mice must be replicated. And it could have reminded readers of the tremendous leap that may be necessary in making the jump from sperm development in vitro in mice to anything that has value in boys undergoing cancer treatment. Again, not just safety, but efficacy.
The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.
The story did not include comments about the work and its implications from a related commentary in the journal Nature.
The story was clear that the results reported were the first time that sperm development from immature testicular samples had been successful in the laboratory.
The story reported on an experimental outcome in mice and though it described a population in whom the technique might be useful, it was clear that additional work was needed before it was ready for clinical application.
The story was clear that it was reporting about a novel experimental outcome.
The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
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