This is a story about several vaccines in development for the mosquito-transmitted Zika virus.
An unfortunate headline notes “striking” results from “early Zika vaccine trial,” suggesting a human clinical trial of this particular vaccine had already begun, when in fact the reference is to a pre-clinical trial in monkeys.
But the news story is more balanced with a good summary of another vaccine–being developed at the National Institute of Health–that has just begun testing in humans. However, the story should have included an independent vaccine expert to provide perspective on the long development road ahead for any of these vaccines.
Zika virus infections continue to spread across certain parts of Latin American, the Caribbean and Florida, and public health/infectious disease researchers have advanced the development of a vaccine at something approaching warp speed for scientific achievement of this sort. Even at the current pace, however, a vaccine ready for general use is still several years away at the very least, and news reports like this one serve a public interest role in keeping people aware of this serious public health threat.
Putting a cost estimate on experimental vaccines would be difficult to do, so we’ll rate this N/A.
However, there is an opportunity in any story about Zika interventions to address the overall costs and financial needs. Congress, for example, has been in the news for months over its failure to earmark funds for Zika control requested by the White House and federal public health officials–how would vaccine funding be affected by that?
Mixed bag. We could have gone either way with this grade but give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story does detail the findings of one of the four vaccines being tested: That 16 monkeys appeared to become immune to Zika. More information about the three other vaccine trials should have been given, though.
The news story notes that the killed-virus vaccine is safer than another line of vaccines under development, but it does not address the presence or absence of any side effects or potential harms/shortcomings of the new experimental vaccine if and when this vaccine is tested in humans. One extremely important safety concern, for example, will be how it affects pregnant women and fetuses.
The story should have let readers that the current evidence for the “striking results’ is low quality, in that it’s only only a small study conducted in animals. We’re far, far away from knowing if this vaccine will safely protect, say, pregnant human women and fetuses.
Words matter in such stories and there was an unfortunate flaw in this sentence: “Three experimental vaccines being developed by researchers at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research had already shown promise in mice — but monkeys are a much better model of how the medicines will work in humans.” Those two verbs convey a certainty that does not exist. Monkeys can be a better model of how the medicines might work in humans.
The story quotes only sources directly involved with the research.
The story does a good job of noting other vaccine types and the clinical testing of a competing vaccine.
The story offers information about possible timetables for clinical testing and availability. It could have been more emphatic that there are a lot of unknowns here, though.
The news story does a good job of explaining how the Harvard-Walter Reed vaccine differs from another one further along in development.
The news story does not appear to be based on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Sarah Anderson
August 11, 2016 at 9:32 amis there a reason why you only mentioned the NIH vaccine and didn’t include the Inovio Pharmaceuticals vaccine which initiated a human trial a month before the NIH and dosed their first person last month??? http://ir.inovio.com/news/news-releases/news-releases-details/2016/Inovio-Pharmaceuticals-Doses-First-Subject-in-Zika-Vaccine-Clinical-Trial/default.aspx
Joy Victory
August 11, 2016 at 10:01 amHi Sarah–are you asking us specifically? Our review is looking at what NBC News discussed in their coverage–you’d want to contact them to ask why they did or didn’t include this trial you reference.
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