E-drug: Media coverage of new drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
To further the discussion begun by David Finer on media reporting on drugs,
I am enclosing a recent editorial from the Toronto star.
Message-Id: <E0zJhcB-0007NB-00@mail1.toronto.istar.net>
TI: Stories can't cure Cancer
BY: Don Sellar Toronto Star
PN: Toronto-Star
SO: The Toronto Star, May 23, 1998, Final Edition, p.E2
HOPEFUL headlines about the latest medical research seem to pop up often
lately in The Star.
Here are three from this week:
Breast cancer therapy hailed
New drug for angina hailed as `milestone'
Prostate test saves lives, study shows
Each headline and accompanying story suggested real progress in the
age-old fight against unfair disease and untimely death.
And, indeed, they may well turn out to be milestones, if not
breakthroughs, in medical science. Or not. News ombuds can't judge
these things.
But another thread runs through all three medical good-news
stories: a degree of one-sidedness and hype that editors normally
find unacceptable in other facets of news reporting.
Do journalists, some of whom failed to distinguish themselves in
high school science, unconsciously let themselves be cowed or
bamboozled at times by people who wear white coats and write reports
in unfathomable jargon?
Should they be more critical and more consistent in handling
medical research news?
In general, and at the risk of oversimplification, I'd say Yes to
both questions.
Readers deserve balanced stories about research findings, not
one-sided stenographic summaries that ignore limitations or
weaknesses in the science being practised.
The Star has rules on how to report an opinion poll responsibly so
readers know how and when it was done, who was polled, the margin of
error, and who paid.
But the 1993 Policy Manual is silent on desirable ingredients for
news stories on scientific research.
Enter Arthur Caplan, director of the Centre for Bioethics at the
University of Pennsylvania, a lonely voice of caution for
journalists who report on medical research findings.
(``We are actually very good at curing rats of cancer,'' he dryly
told a convention of news ombuds three years ago in Philadelphia.)
Caplan has developed a checklist for wary journalists and readers.
It was outlined in this space once before, but bears repeating:
Methods. A story should say how many people the study included, how
they were chosen, and what was done. If researchers were studying
the effect of sugar on the behaviour of children, readers should be
told whether it was a ``double-blind'' trial in which no one knew
who got sugar and who got artificial sweetener.
Findings. What does the study prove? Does it confirm or contradict previous
ones? Would the findings apply to a narrow group of people? Most important,
does the story include comments from an independent expert in the field?
Qualifications. Even if responsible scientists have done independent
research, who paid? Readers need to know if it was an industry group
or company with an axe to grind.
Comparative risk. A study might conclude that women who drink coffee are 100
times more likely to have a miscarriage. But as Caplan points out, it might
be ``an increase from very, very teeny to a little teeny'' and therefore
insignificant. And how does coffee compare with, say, alcohol as a
risk factor?
Now, some would say that there isn't space in the paper to provide
that level of detail. But why print a story on Page 1 about a new
drug therapy for breast cancer without giving readers the widest
perspective possible?
False hopes are easily raised. The penalty is eroded credibility.
Copyright The Toronto Star 1998 All Rights Reserved.
www.thestar.com
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.