A little on the reporting of science in the media (and why I'm taking so long over the whole clozapine thing)

There was an paper that came out last year that I didn't bother to read.

Here are two articles by science bloggers who'd read the paper.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/17/more-on-propranolol-the-drug-that-doesnt-erase-memories/

http://dlmccaslin.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/a-pill-to-erase-bad-memories-not-quite/

They're talking about coverage of the media furore over a piece of
research that showed a heart medication could be used to selective erase
memories as a treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Yet, as is
pointed out well in the second link, the paper did not say that the drug
erased memories. In fact the authors explicitly stated that the drug did
not erase memories.

The first link is a good piece of coverage of the story across the
world. Many featured in many mainstream media sources such as the
Guardian and the Daily Mail all stating that the research showed the
potential for erasing people's memories. This wasn't true. It did
however promote a public neuroethical debate and I think it may be the
first time that's happened in the UK so this ruin of science served a
purpose.

The first article shows how journalists use what they want from a press
release. The second article has an alternative take.

The reporting of science by the media is usually a joke, at least from
the scientific perspective. Usually it's enough for them to read the
abstract. Journalists are not trained in research though there are some
very highly skilled ones that do do a good job of reporting on science.

It's why good science bloggers are so valuable. While the mass media
have their big budgets, lavish offices and access to information
inaccessible to the public the bloggers often tower over them for good
(and by good I mean accurate) reporting of the research. The mass media
have a different goal to science bloggers: they look for stories that
will interest the public. An example of this was a study that showed
caffeine causes psychosis which got some media attention in the last
year or two. The study was a very poor quality prospective study which
looked like it was just a small post-graduate study. It was clearly not
a blind trial because when I searched for a copy of the study I came
across the research participant recruitment website which told people
what the study was about. Yet, apparently, this was of interest to the
public and was covered in an Independent article
(http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/coffee-linked-to-hallucinations-1334727.html).

This could just be an issue of wasted paper but there's a two-fold
problem. The first is the problem of the wasted newspaper space. High
quality research, for example the Cochrane Colloboration systematic
review of Omega-3 fish oils for bipolar that show they don't really work
that well for mania but do for depression, is important but instead
small sample, single prospective, low quality studies about fish oils
and their potential to treat psychosis are published instead.

More importantly is the impact of poor research publicised by the media.
The best example is the MMR jab and it's association with autism.
Parents across the UK feared their children would become mentally ill.
Some paid to get the jabs separately while others lobbied for the NHS to
provide the vaccines as separate injections.

This is the first bit of the NHS Choices take on the doctor who wrote
the research. The rest of it's worth a look.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/MMR-vaccine-autism-scare-doctor.aspx
"
The doctor who sparked the MMR controversy was "dishonest, irresponsible
and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain" of children, the
General Medical Council (GMC) has ruled. The ruling has been reported by
many newspapers.

The GMC said Dr Andrew Wakefield "abused his position of trust" when
conducting research into a proposed link between the MMR vaccine, autism
and bowel disorders. He carried out clinically unnecessary and invasive
tests on children without ethical approval or appropriate qualifications.

Wakefield also failed to disclose conflicts of interest to The Lancet
medical journal, which in 1998 published the research paper that sparked
the MMR scare. The paper has since been withdrawn by The Lancet and
discredited. The scare nonetheless led to a dramatic drop in MMR
vaccination rates and a rise in cases of measles.

The ruling comes after a two-and-a-half-year investigation by the GMC.
"

The reason I added the bracketed extension to the title of this blog
post is fairly obvious I hope. I'm desperately trying to get it right.