Our Review Summary
Melanie Gonick/MIT
This New York Times’ story provides a detailed explanation of research developing an artificial “second skin” that may have both cosmetic and medical uses.
The story discusses several experiments leading to the product, its availability and the connections between the academic researchers who discovered it and the companies planning on marketing it.
However, as with an NBC story on the same story–which we also reviewed–this information is given without succinct, numerical details on what the study findings showed.
Why This Matters
This new “second skin” claims to solve some cosmetic skin problems associated with aging. If proven correct, it will be a product with assured public appeal.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story doesn’t discuss costs of the would-be product, even though the story emphasizes that the technology is in private product development and data is being gathered for future FDA approval consideration.
Not Satisfactory
Though we’re told there’s a new published paper about several pilot studies, the story does not include any hard numbers from the research on what the measured benefits were. The photos included with the story–do they represent a best-case scenario? They have the potential to skew reader perception.
Satisfactory
The story mentions harms indirectly by citing a lack of irritation or allergic reactions among those test subjects that used it. This at least clarifies the findings about some of the obvious potential harms, so we’ll rate this Satisfactory.
But, we do think the the story could have pointed out that long-term effects are still unknown. For example, what happens if you get some of this in your eye?
Not Satisfactory
There are some hints of study details included in the story that help the reader assess evidence quality, such as this line: “…people were randomly assigned to use second skin or a placebo under their eyes. Trained observers graded the subjects on the appearance of the undereye skin.”
But overall, we felt it was challenging to assess the evidence quality based on what the story included. How many people were in these tests? How long were they? What are the next steps?
Not Satisfactory
Given the tone of the piece–lots of medical language and interviews with researchers–and that it appeared in the Times’ Health section, we feel this story disease-mongers a normal life event (aging). For example, it refers to under-eye bags as “a condition that plagues so many middle-aged and older people.” Are under-eye bags really a “condition” in need of treatment?
Satisfactory
The story clearly uses sources beyond those provided by the news release. It also gets applause for pointing out clearly the connection between the researchers and the companies licensing the product saying, “All of the authors on the new paper have an equity interest in Living Proof and so, indirectly, in Olivo,” (the two identified companies). NBC’s story on the same research didn’t make this financial connection nearly as clear.
Satisfactory
We’ll give the story credit in this rating since it mentioned current practices in treating dry skin, one of the touted uses of this new product, and explains how those current practices are less than optimum. It doesn’t however mention that surgery is the common approach to addressing undereye bags.
Satisfactory
The story establishes these as preliminary studies, adding that they haven’t obtained enough data yet to submit the product for FDA approval.
Satisfactory
It’s made clear that a cream that changes into a second skin that is somewhat protective, ostensibly harmless, and cosmetically appealing is clearly novel.
Satisfactory
The story clearly went far beyond the university’s news release in explaining 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