This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered.
The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it’s ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it’s logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.”
The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward “switch” that can control the aging process — and this story suggests so — then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.
We’ll give the story a “N/A” in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial.
The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents’ lives “by 10-15% compared to untreated animals.” At another point, it said, “the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%.”
The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out.
Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as “vectors.” The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted.
The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials.
Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include.
One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said “if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92.” We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn’t support that kind of speculation.
The story doesn’t appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease.
The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.)
The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans.
It’s clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, “The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing.” It also states that, “Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers.”
The story heralds this research as a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.” Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a “breakthrough?” That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study.
Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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