Credit: Paul Asman and Jill Lenoble
The story describes early development of a vaccine for blocking the high from heroin. The story, especially the headline, makes the leap that because it’s worked in a few monkeys, it will work in people (and be safe). It’s just too soon in the scientific research process for anyone to know if this “vaccine” will work in people.
To its credit, the story did include some comments from an independent expert who discussed how the vaccine–if it ever comes to market–would not be a “panacea” for heroin addiction.
Thousands of Americans are dying every year from heroin overdoses and the numbers are increasing. Along with the deaths, there are also viral infections from dirty needles, such as hepatitis C and HIV. New ways to treat heroin addiction are needed–but that doesn’t mean journalists should shine a spotlight on preclinical research, potentially raising false hopes of readers.
Given the level of development, cost is not a consideration at this juncture.
Benefits were not put in quantified terms. Instead, qualitative terms are used. Phrasing like, “elicited a successful immune response that neutralized heroin…” and, “…hinting that their immune systems were already primed…” provide insight to medical professionals, but are perhaps confusing to lay readers. With research this preliminary, far more caveats were needed to pass this criterion.
The story notes “The researchers did not observe any harmful side effects from the intervention.” Having said that, again the study was conducted in four monkeys under highly controlled lab conditions–not in humans. The comment of one of the authors, “We believe this vaccine candidate will prove safe for human trials,” feels premature. On what grounds does he believe this?
To have passed this criteria, the story should have said the harms are unknown.
It’s not until the fifth paragraph that the story reveals the heroin-tetanus-toxoid vaccine has been administered to mice and four monkeys. This is irresponsible to readers who have been primed to assume otherwise, based on the story’s headline and initial statements. Later in the story we learn that no human research is planned, but are given no explanation as to why.
There is no evidence of disease mongering here. Having said that, we would have liked to have seen a comment or two on the rising abuse of heroin and other opioids.
The comments of an independent knowledgable source provide balance to the story. However, the story did not disclose that the researcher, Kim D. Janda, has filed a patent application on this technology. See “Heroin Haptens, Immunoconjugates and Related Uses.”
The independent source’s quote explains that this would likely not become a panacea, and other treatment options would still be needed.
The story explains that research has not yet taken place in humans, indirectly inferring that it’s not available.
The story does not suggest that this research is novel or unique. As noted, other attempts to develop a vaccine for opiate addiction have not worked out.
The story closely resembles the news release from the Scripps Institute in substance and in the use of quotes from the researchers. However, because an outside source was quoted, it doesn’t rely solely on the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
With the discontinuation of @HealthNewsRevu, there's a genuine concern that well-written and researched "reality checks" in healthcare are not economically interesting. This should be disconcerting to anyone, and yet I'm only seeing more and more piling into "promising findings"
Thanks for ALL you do and have done, Gary. https://t.co/93K4hzQXZj
Thanks for sharing this with all of us today, @garyschwitzer @HealthNewsRevu
A nice gift.
#healthcare #healthcarenews #journalism #reporting #factsmatter #truthmatters https://t.co/hNHdZDl2rc
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