No discussion of risks in NPR’s look at brain-zapping implants to treat destructive impulses
Rating
Could A Zap To The Brain Derail Destructive Impulses?
Our Review Summary
This article describes some mouse and single-human-subject research at Stanford Medicine about an electrical brain stimulation device that is an offshoot of deep brain stimulation and that appears able to home in on and zap — in real time — the neuronal sudden urges and impulses that go rogue in a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbens.
The story did a good job discussing costs and laying out the study design for readers. Also, although the article starts out by spending a lot of time speculating about human benefits, it does eventually make it clear that this is preliminary rodent research. One big gap of the story was not acknowledging that should this idea ever make it to market, it will indeed carry serious risks, including infection, strokes and device failure. Those serious risks (and the steep price tag) may outweigh the benefits.
Why This Matters
As one of the principal investigators puts it in the article, “clinical need” for safe, effective treatments of addictive and self-destructive behaviors is high. Readers and listeners will be instantly interested in any potential therapy that stops the behavior at its source inside the brain. That level of interest makes it necessary to be cautious and realistic about any application of animal research and a single case history, particularly, as the article notes, because mice and other non-human animals don’t exhibit such behaviors naturally.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Although the article might have been strengthened by including the costs of alternative therapies, it clearly notes the high cost of the implantable device.
Not Satisfactory
The article offers a summary statement or two about how much better mice receiving responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) therapy did than control mice. But, it needed to make it more clear that regardless of what the researchers measured, mice studies should not be extrapolated to human benefits. It’s a risky endeavor. In this story, any caveats about the research were often followed up by statements that watered them down. For example:
“Whether this strategy could block harmful impulses in people remains unclear. For now the path seems promising.”
Not Satisfactory
The article didn’t discuss harms. Bleeding in the brain, infection, and device failure are all known risks. This would have helped balance out the researcher’s unchallenged assertion that this procedure is “safe.” This is especially important to balance when talking about medical devices, which are not as regulated as drugs.
Satisfactory
Although the article could have been stronger had it offered more detail about the protocol, it does a pretty good job of explaining what the research accomplished and why it may hold some potential.
Satisfactory
No mongering here, though given the broad speculation about what this device might be used for, there does seem to be the potential for this intervention to be used in less than absolutely medically necessary ways.
Not Satisfactory
The story doesn’t disclose that Casey Halpern, the lead researcher, has accepted payment from the maker of the RNS System device, Neuropace.
Not Satisfactory
There are treatments for addictive or impulsive behaviors, although arguably they all have less than stellar records of success, and many that involve medications come with a host of side effects. Some mention of these should have been made, though.
Satisfactory
The article makes clear that this is very early research and that the treatment is not clinically available for behavioral problems.
Satisfactory
The “gee whiz” aspects of this research — particularly the researchers ability to map the troublesome neuronal activity pretty accurately — are well portrayed. The research is intriguing and the article brings that across.
Satisfactory
The article did include one source not directly involved with the research.
Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory
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