Without a doubt, poor health journalism is dangerous. There is no question that reckless media coverage of the (disproved) link between MMR and autism, based on a poorly understood scientific paper, contributed to the decreased uptake of the vaccine seen today and potentially the deaths of many children from measles.
With this in mind, you would hope that journalists have learned their lesson. But as a paper broke into the media mainstream over the New Year, it has become clear this is not the case. We all need to remember what research findings actually mean in the greater scheme of health and science, what we as journalists should publish and what you as readers should believe.
A research paper published in major journal Science suggested that simple bad luck could explain two thirds of cancer. The message suggested that some cancers could not be prevented. Sensational headlines prevailed: BBC News reported, ÔÇ£Most cancers bad luckÔÇØ, while The Guardian went with the bold statement, ÔÇ£Two-thirds of adult cancer ÔÇÿdown to bad luckÔÇÖ rather than genesÔÇØ.
According to biostatistician Bob OHara and science blogger GrrlScientist, these headlines, and the stories, are just bollocks. The work, which is very interesting, shows no such thing Please journalists, get a clue before you write about science.
Many other scientists were quick to point this out too. The study didnÔÇÖt include all types of cancer, including the two of the most common, prostate and breast. The study also made no such claim that the majority of cancer cases are down to ÔÇ£sheer luckÔÇØ. The data simply suggested there is a relationship between risk of cancer and number of cell divisions, with no mention of the proportion of cancers due to this division.
Although rather unclear and arguably easily misinterpreted, the study concludes that only a third of variation between tissues is attributable to the environment or genes. The media has jumped from talking about cancer rates in different tissues to cancer rates in people, a claim that is not substantiated by this work.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the giant World Health Organisation, published an unusual press release stating that it ÔÇÿstrongly disagrees with the reportÔǪ. This position could have serious negative consequences from both cancer research and public health perspectives.ÔÇØ
Some might argue that this is far off the scale of dangerous reporting in comparison to the MMR scandal. However, when members of the public take to twitter and state ÔÇÿTHANK YOU BBC!! Smoking doesnÔÇÖt cause cancer. ItÔÇÖs just bad luckÔÇØ, you cannot argue with the effect these stories can have. This contradicts the message of many organisations including Cancer Research UK: that ÔÇ£we can stack the odds of avoiding cancer in our favour if we embrace a healthy lifestyleÔÇØ.
A recent study in the BMJ suggested that there is a strong association between this frightening hype in health reporting and exaggerated press releases. Press releases are normally the first story on a study, published by the universityÔÇÖs PR department and usually fact-checked by the research authors. Catherine Collins of the NHS argues that ÔÇ£academics should be accountable for the wild exaggerations in press releases of their studies.ÔÇØ
However, Ed Yong, a prominent science blogger, was quick to remind journalists of their role in publishing accurately. ÔÇ£Blame is not a zero-sum game. Errors can arise anywhere; they are meant to end with us. We are meant to be bullshit filters. That is our job.ÔÇØ
Whoever wins the blame game, writers and scientists alike need to be aware of the damaging effects of hype in health journalism. In the words of The Stats Guy, a medical statistician blogger, ÔÇ£for the media to give the impression that lifestyle isnÔÇÖt important, based on the misunderstanding of what the research shows, is highly irresponsible.ÔÇØ Readers beware.
Add Comment