On this page, we’re collecting a growing number of links of articles about biohype, which:
may be described as “a phenomenon in which there is a gap between the expectations associated with the development of a genetically derived technology/field of research and the practical applications that may realistically result from it” (Stenne, Hurlimann, Godard, 2012). Biohype occurs when the anticipated and claimed benefits of a developing field of science are unrealistic, overstated, exaggerated or premature, in the view of the data and knowledge that has been gathered.
That excerpt is lifted from the website of the OMICS-ETHICS Research Group at the Bioethics Programs, University of Montreal. This screenshot from their website outlines some of their research topics.
The following list was inspired by Dr. Michael Joyner of the Mayo Clinic, who tweets about biohype as @DrMJoyner. He will help us build this list over time. It should help journalists working on biotech stories, and it should help interested consumers to become smarter consumers. Any opinions expressed by Dr. Joyner are his own.
Biohype may take many different forms, so we’ll try to lump our links into categories.
Things Joyner has written:
- JAMA opinion piece by Joyner and Nigel Paneth, “Seven Questions For Personalized Medicine“
- Joyner’s own New York Times op-ed piece, ” ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down“
- “Precision medicine, cardiovascular disease and hunting elephants,” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases (abstract only for free)
Medical/science journal manuscripts somehow related to biohype:
- ‘The precision-oncology illusion,” by Vinay Prasad, MD.
- “Limits to Personalized Cancer Medicine,” Ian Tannock and John Hickman in The New England Journal of Medicine
- “Uncertainty in the era of precision medicine,” by David Hunter in The New England Journal of Medicine
- “The Obesity gene and the (misplaced) search for a personalized approach to our weight gain problems,” by Timothy Caulfield, PhD.
- “Precision oncology: a strategy we were not ready to deploy,” by Tito Fojo, MD, PhD
- JAMA paper, “Establishing the Clinical Validity of Arrhythmia-Related Genetic Variations Using the Electronic Medical Record: A Valid Take on Precision Medicine?“
- New England Journal of Medicine perspective piece, “Public Health in the Precision-Medicine Era“
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper, “Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research“
- Lancet Oncology personal view by Vinay Prasad, Tito Fojo, Michael Brada: “Precision oncology: origins, optimism and potential“
- New England Journal of Medicine perspective piece by Alta Charo, “On the Road (to a Cure?) — Stem-Cell Tourism and Lessons for Gene Editing“
- “Microbiome science needs a healthy dose of skepticism,” by William P. Hanage in Nature.
- “Confronting stem cell hype,” by Timothy Caulfield and colleagues in Science.
Journalism or newspaper opinion pieces touching on biohype:
- “Hype vs. hope in medical research,” opinion piece by Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
- “Beware the hype: Top scientists cautious about fighting cancer with immunotherapy.” Sharon Begley, STAT News.
- “Personalized medicine has obvious benefits but has anyone thought about the issues?” TheConversation.com.
- On our blog, guest post by Arvind Suresh of the Genetic Expert News Service – “Don’t believe the biotype: Tips for evaluating claims about genetics and biotech.”
- Vinay Prasad’s Washington Post opinion piece, “Why a cancer moonshot is unlikely to find us a cure.”
- Washington Post Wonkblog piece, “The alluring idea that we can cure cancer has become a trap“
- Larry Husten’s Cardiobrief column, “Precision Medicine Stuck in Second Grade: Flunks test of clinical utility on two fronts.“
- Washington Post Wonkblog piece, “A social media war just erupted over the biotech innovation of the century“
- David Dobbs’ BuzzFeed piece, “What Is Your DNA Worth? Your DNA may be up for sale. And the sale depends on an exaggerated picture of genetic power and destiny.”
- Tom Junod’s Esquire piece, “The Death of Patient Zero: Personalized medicine—or, as President Obama calls it, precision medicine—may indeed one day deliver routine medical miracles. But for Stephanie Lee, the only miracles were the human and ancient kind.”
- Howard Wolinsky’s Modern Healthcare piece, “Imprecise marketing of precision medicine: Advertising may be running ahead of science.”
More to come. We welcome your nominations for this list; send to feedback@healthnewsreview.org
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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.