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
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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