In news reports, medical research seems to lurch wildly and erratically between findings. Facts "proven" today are "disproved" tomorrow. Why is that?
     Accurately communicating the results of medical research requires carefully nuanced language and scientific and statistical expertise. Misleading language and interpretive errors often creep in as a study travels from laboratory to polished news article.
     One sampling of health news coverage found that, in half of the reports, research results had been "spun" - by scientists, their employers' public relations departments, and/or the news media. For each of these groups, inadequate scientific and statistical expertise, carelessness, and/or a desire to magnify the importance of the research appeared to be contributing factors.
     You can learn to recognize certain common mistakes in news reports, even if you have no special medical or scientific training. Here are two related problems that you can often spot.

. 

Problem #1:  Some studies do not merit the media attention they receive.
     Researchers who recently reviewed articles in five major American newspapers (including the San Jose Mercury News) found that the popular press is much more likely to write health articles based on lower quality research than on better studies. We assume that other types of media - radio, magazines, television, Internet - would make similar selections.

     Unsurprisingly, this particular study was neglected by most news media companies. You can access a brief summary and the original research article online. 
     How can you tell if an article is based on good science? It is not always possible, of course, but often there are tell-tale clues. Be alert for these elements as you read or watch stories on medical research.

. 

Problem # 2:  News reports often strongly suggest a cause-and-effect relationship that has not been proven.
     An experiment's design depends on the scientist's question. Observational studies are designed to discover whether two phenomena tend to occur together more or less often than chance would predict ("Are people who eat A less likely to have Disease Y?"). Such studies do not explain why there is a difference. (People who eat A may be less disease-prone because they also exercise more.)

     Even though observational studies are usually of less significance than studies that demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, news outlets tend to favor them, as noted in Problem 1.
     Compounding this problem, many press releases, news reports, and headlines (and even some scientists) erroneously suggest that an observational study has discovered a cause-and-effect relationship ("Eat A to prevent Disease Y!"). It is very easy to misspeak when reporting on these studies, as a quick scan of this guide for journalists will help you appreciate.

     If you read about research which has simply observed that two phenomena often occur in tandem, remind yourself that the reason for the correlation is unknown.

. 

     The economic survival of news organizations depends on attracting and keeping your attention. Researchers, universities, and other institutions must also prove their worth to maintain funding. These financial pressures, plus the complexities of accurately communicating study results, sometimes lead to distortions in medical news coverage.
     The next time your attention is captured by medical news, we hope you will be better able to gauge whether the research truly deserves your attention.

.

     You are invited to our upcoming, English-language health lectures. Each will begin at 7 p.m. in Cupertino Community Hall, adjacent to the library.

.
.    Sleep and Health - Wednesday, February 26
.    Diabetes 101 - Monday, March 10

Mandarin Speakers: Save These Dates!
     Our spring, Mandarin-language health lectures will address depression (Sunday, March 23) and post-trauma stress disorder (Sunday, May 4). Please share this flyer about the talks, co-sponsored by PlaneTree and the S. Ku Foundation.