This past Thursday, the BBC
published an article “Alzheimer’s brain plaques ‘rapidly cleared’ in mice,”
describing a possible breakthrough in understanding brain function in mice that
could be the key to developing drugs with the potential of treating Alzheimer’s.
There were four qualifiers in that
sentence alone. And the article itself includes many affirmations that these
studies are still in their earliest stages, along with several disclaimers: “He
warned people not to “try this at home”, as the drug had not been proven to
work in Alzheimer’s patients and there was no indication of what any dose
should be,” and “We need to be clear, the drug works quite well in mouse models
of the disease. Our next objective is to ascertain if it acts similarly in humans.”
Now, there isn’t anything wrong with
this article alone. Many probably appreciate keeping up with scientific
findings, and there was nothing sensationalist or misleading about the article.
But hundreds of these articles are published weekly—just the day before, the
BBC published “Gene therapy ‘gave me sight back’” and the New York Times
published “Study Explores Electrical Stimulation as an Aid to Memory” and this
Monday CNN published “Overeating may be linked to memory loss.” The sheer
number of these types of articles makes it statistically unlikely that the
studies in question are all of the same caliber, but it is becoming harder to
separate the promising from the pointless. Some may argue the freedom of
information in the age of the Internet will galvanize innovation and bring certain
privileges to those who might not have otherwise had access to them. Certainly,
bringing these discoveries out of the realm of dense academic journals has its
benefits, but these journals have established peer review systems. The studies
that are published in them receive attention from other researchers based on
how credible the work seems, and how the work relates to similar projects in the
field. Now, newspapers and online blogs have instant access to these papers,
and can report on any one with the potential to increase readership, regardless
of how well the paper has been received in the scientific community.
The results range from a new way to
lose weight being pushed every week to a new carcinogen creating new fears and
behaviors at about the same pace. Is this acceptable on the part of
journalists? Or have they taken their job as disseminators of information to
such an extreme that is potentially detrimental? Most would agree that
journalists have an ethical obligation to fact check all of their information,
but this responsibility can be met in many different degrees. Yes, all of the
facts in this BBC article are accurate, and it even links to the original
article in Science. Does the
obligation end there? Or should the author also take steps to make sure this
research is being followed up by the researchers, picked up by new ones, and
generally accepted to be truly promising? Should he publish such an article
even if the potential innovations are decades away? Does this article give
false hope to Alzheimer’s patients, outweighing any benefits of bringing this
study to the public eye?
I believe these obligations do
exist, and more care should be taken to make sure health issues aren’t
dramatized and excessively propagated, as these studies can easily be misused.
While the journalist and other researchers may know to take all findings with a
grain of salt, most readers take an article covering a scientific report as
fact. While this doesn’t necessarily cause social harm, it often does create
either unnecessary paranoia or unfounded hope. On the other end of the
spectrum, the constant barrage of scientific breakthroughs makes it hard to
take health news that is actually serious seriously. Scientists and journalists
have the duty to make sure that their news is actually worth spreading, or make
it abundantly clear that scientific findings are always changing and should not
be taken as gospel truth.
BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16945466
No comments:
Post a Comment