Science by press release

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813#more-3813

"Last week I wrote about a study that purported to show that antidepressants have no effect in mild to moderate depression. A careful reading of the paper shows that the authors dramatically overstated their findings, particularly in their public statements to the media. The study has another implication beyond the misleading claims about antidepressants. It is an object lesson in an ongoing and disturbing phenomenon in mainstream journalism, the wholesale reprinting of press releases of scientific papers instead of reading and analyzing the papers themselves.

Pick up any newspaper or magazine and you can read about the latest scientific breakthroughs in cancer, Alzheimer’s or heart disease. Just keep in mind that what you are reading is probably a commercial message direct from the authors, not an accurate representation of the paper itself. Medical journalists are supposed to interpret the findings of recent medical publications and present them to the general public in ways that they can understand. They are supposed to provide context for the discovery, explaining what it might mean for disease treatment or cure. Yet, they rarely do. Instead, they simply copy the press release.

Most people are unaware that scientists issue press releases about their work and they are certainly unaware that medical journalists often copy them word for word. Instead of presenting an accurate representation of medical research, medical journalists have become complicit in transmitting inaccurate or deceptive “puff pieces” designed to hype the supposed discovery and hide any deficiencies in the research.

Imagine if a journalist reviewing the newest Ford cross-over vehicle didn’t bother to drive the car, but simply copied the Ford brochure word for word. Could you rely on the journalist’s evaluation? Of course not. Yet that is precisely what medical journalists are doing each and every day.

..."

----------------------------


Now, wouldn't it be awesome if all DUers started to treat the media's reports on science with a more critical eye? Of course, that does mean leaving preconceived notions in another room, or at least on another board. But, still, aren't we more critical of reports about politics than we are about reports about science and studies?

should be required reading in high school, with periodic re-reads throughout one's life.


http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469

with the unique ability to explain science in terms any layman can easily comprehend. Tragic that he died at such a relatively young age.

Lots of layoffs of competent science writers in newspapers, and the rest are most likely overworked, or more interested in space than medicine, or something.

I am rather skeptical of picking and choosing of studies based on various criteria, going into some sort of mega-analysis. It's pretty easy to set the criteria knowing full well what studies will meet those criteria, and thus gaming the results.

It is particularly disturbing when different types of medications and/or vitamins are aggregated together. This happens a lot with vitamin studies.

Having said that, the studies on SSRI efficacy don't exactly bowl me over. They are huge studies, so the marginal efficacy is likely to be significant statistically. One problem is that the term depression is a little broad. They come out better when particular disorders are studied--OCD, or panic disorder, for instance.

I see nothing wrong in posting media accounts without comment, though, because people can comment in the responding messages.

Yes, But. The Annotated Atlantic.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2495