Credit: Olivo Labs, LLC.
NBC offers a story about a new product, developed in MIT labs, that can function as a “second skin.” The story touts the cream’s usefulness in addressing cosmetic problems like undereye bags and mentions other supposed attributes, including moisture retention, elasticity and esthetic appeal.
The story included an independent source, which is important, especially given the source’s skeptical, cautious tone. But her comments don’t appear until the very end of the piece, and are buried under many paragraphs of promotional-sounding copy. The story also lacked sufficient detail about the experiments (a problem we also saw in our review of the New York Time story on the same research), and it didn’t acknowledge that some of the quotes in the story were lifted directly from the news release.
A new product providing a non-surgical approach to solving an apparently unappealing cosmetic flaw–under eye bags–is sure to grab the attention of many readers.
The story offers no information on the cost of the would-be product, nor of how expensive the components of this new material is, even though the story emphasizes that the technology is being licensed for commercial applications. Even if it’s too soon to know the precise cost, a ballpark figure is useful.
The story outlines the improvements arising from the use of this material, but no numerical data was offered.
The story tells us that “Repeated daily wear resulted in no report of irritation or other adverse events resulting from the XPL use.” That’s at least a nod toward discussing potential harms, so we’ll consider this Satisfactory.
But, we think the story would be stronger if it had been more specific about what “repeated” meant. We’re also wondering about things that could inevitably occur with regular use, like the product getting into the eyes.
NBC’s story gives scant information about the human tests involved in this report, nor are we told just how preliminary the research is, which is made more clear in The New York Times story we reviewed.
Given the tone of the piece–lots of medical language and interviews with researchers–and that it appeared in the NBC’s Health section, we feel this story disease-mongers a normal life event (aging).
The story does include at least one independent source, although that perspective is buried at the bottom of the story, long after the many potential benefits of the technology have been extensively touted. As as to potential conflicts of interest, the story didn’t point out the researchers have equity interest in the companies, instead it said they had “close ties,” which warrants a Not Satisfactory rating.
We’ll give a Satisfactory in this category since the story states that the problem of undereye bags–which the story seems to focus on–is normally addressed by surgery, and clearly a topical product is preferable to an invasive approach. Another obvious alternative, with no risks or costs, is leaving the normally aging skin alone, but that’s not discussed.
Since the story mentions that the material has been licensed to two private companies, readers will assume that it’s not on the market yet but may be in the near future. It’s pretty clear that it is not available for public use yet.
A cream that changes into a second skin that is somewhat protective, ostensibly harmless, and cosmetically appealing is clearly novel enough to garner public attention, so we’ll score this category as Satisfactory.
The story used several quotes from the news release without acknowledging that. For example, this quote appeared in the story and in the news release:
“It has to have the right optical properties, otherwise it won’t look good, and it has to have the right mechanical properties, otherwise it won’t have the right strength and it won’t perform correctly,” Langer said.
As did this one:
“Creating a material that behaves like skin is very difficult,” says Barbara Gilchrest, a dermatologist at MGH and an author of the paper. “Many people have tried to do this, and the materials that have been available up until this have not had the properties of being flexible, comfortable, nonirritating, and able to conform to the movement of the skin and return to its original shape.”
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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