This is a story about a case study involving one man with a specific type of partial paralysis, who regained some motion via an experimental device implanted in his brain and connected to a device worn on his arm.
The case study is undoubtedly newsworthy, but BuzzFeed’s coverage was unbalanced. It starts off with a “be amazed” tone, skipping over important nuances about the technology and the man’s limited skills. For example, the headline blares that a mind-reading computer allows the man to play “Guitar Hero.” Only much later in the story do we get important details and caveats, ending on a “be disappointed” tone.
As well, the story should have told readers that the lead researchers have an interest in patents associated with the hardware and software they are developing.
Be amazed. Be disappointed. That’s the cycle that stories like this put us through. The achievement presented by these researchers is remarkable; they demonstrated that this line of work may someday produce something of benefit to some people with certain types of paralysis.
But overselling the achievement as a mind-reading computer that gave a paralyzed man the ability to play “Guitar Hero” (a challenge for many able-bodied readers) gives us a false high and sets us up for a crash. It undermines the credibility of science and medical reports.
It is too early in the development of this experimental technology to begin talking about what the price of such a system might be. But readers would have gotten a clearer idea of the preliminary state of this work if the story had noted that the brain mapping, device implantation, sophisticated equipment and hundreds of hours of training probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This article included important caveats about the limited actions that the patient was able to perform, and made it clear that this device was highly experimental. But most of these details are mentioned only near the end of the story. We might have given the story a Satisfactory rating if the headline and opening paragraphs had matched the tone of these later sections. However, the overly broad claims at the top of the story overwhelm the cautionary details.
Also, the story should have more clearly pointed out that (as a Nature news article specifically noted) this approach may not work for people who, unlike this patient, don’t still have at least some ability to move their shoulders and elbows. As a result, the story implies that this experiment is relevant to a far broader group of people than the researchers claim.
Even if the technology is experimental and only tested on one patient, the story should have included some discussion of risks of the implantation surgery and the implant itself.
We will give the story a Satisfactory rating here because it’s made clear that this is a study of one person. Readers who pay attention all the way to the end are indeed warned about how far this line of work is from producing a useful option for real-world use.
However, the story would have been better if–instead of boasting that the patient can play “Guitar Hero”–the headline and opening paragraphs had been clearer that he could produce a limited range of finger and hand motions in painstakingly prepared laboratory conditions that, rather than revealing a useful device, demonstrate that the goal of a useful device is probably not impossible someday.
Paralysis from spinal cord injuries is a devastating condition, so the story is not overstating the situation facing patients.
The story includes strong context and cautionary statements from two independent sources. However, we cannot give it a Satisfactory rating because it doesn’t tell readers that the researchers have an interest in patents for the hardware and software they are developing. These financial interests were clearly noted in the Nature journal article and should have been included in the story.
This experimental device does appear to allow this patient to do things that no other treatment can. However, the main achievement is a proof of concept. Unfortunately, the story makes the difference between his baseline function and his movements in the laboratory appear bigger than it is.
The story is clear that this device is in laboratory testing. The comments from independent sources at the very end of the story help describe the long and uncertain road ahead for researchers.
The story describes the specific new achievement of this experimental device: sensing electrical patterns in the brain and then translating them to electrical stimuli that trigger appropriate muscle movements.
The story includes comments from independent sources and does not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Even when stories get the facts right, they often fail to provide crucial context and caveats that would help audiences make sense of the news — or lack thereof, says @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/b7YO2fYt0a
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