Even More Bad Medical Reporting

Or, more specifically, even more ideas for preventing bad medical reporting.

A post by Mark Liberman over at UPenn hits at the topic of that last post, how to prevent bad reporting of medical news in the popular press.

Liberman describes yet another instance of a popular newspaper completely mangling a piece of medical research. This time it’s whether fish oil makes students more attentive (I’ll give away the ending – it doesn’t).

But I especially like how he closes his piece:

So that’s the foundation of my modest proposal. Any newspaper or magazine that has a Science writer should also have a Bad Science writer, whose job would be act as a sort of intellectual ombudsman, to practice what Ben Goldacre in another post called “The noble and ancient tradition of moron-baiting“.

The Bad Science writer is there to make sure that anything going to the presses is scientifically accurate. And that writer would, presumably, have enough knowledge to make reasonable statements on medical research.

It’s an interesting alternative to my idea of having expert consultants on call. You run the risk of getting a bad “bad science” writer – i.e. somebody who makes poor calls about what counts as real science. But you also don’t have to deal with cranky academics (present company included!).

Bad Medical Reporting?

On June 8, 2010, there was an opinion piece on cnn.com that hit at problems with medical research reporting in the popular press:

Otis Browley: Bad medical writing hurts public health

He rambles a bit in the piece, bouncing from the corporatization of medical conferences to poor reporting of medical advancements to misleading health stories. But there’s a piece about 1/2 way through that hits at the recurring theme of this blog: communicating complex information to lay audiences.

Specifically, Browley argues

Recently, the economic crisis in the media has led to the disappearance, through layoffs or by choice, of some wonderful, skilled and seasoned science writers. And with that comes genuine concern. The veterans have been replaced by mostly young, inexperienced writers who suddenly find themselves under pressure to turn out compelling stories about difficult scientific medical studies that are all too easy to oversimplify and misinterpret.

Meanwhile, to bolster readership or numbers of viewers, the media reward reporters whose stories can lead to the most eye-grabbing headline. These reporters are well-meaning, but if they do not understand medicine and the scientific process, these articles can truly harm public health. And, in my experience, that is happening more and more often.

And even more important: Reporters must understand that the motivation of every scientific report must be questioned as part of routine due diligence. The caveats from each report must also be clearly detailed in each story. From where I sit, all too often, that is not happening.

This seems a variant on that all-too-common argument that contemporary news reporting is moving towards “shock value” over in-depth reporting. That’s a highly contestable claim that I’ll save for a later post.

But, buried in this claim is an issue I find to be quite compelling. Those who report medical advances don’t fully understand what those advances are. Or, more nuanced, those who report medical advances don’t fully understand the full implications and “fuzziness” of the findings.

Browley goes on in the article to cite two instances of this misunderstanding. One, a potential cure for breast cancer. And two, the potential of blood tests for detecting lung cancer. And he does a good job pointing out the problems in the two studies that didn’t make it into the popular press.

For me, there’s a problem here of understanding. It’s laudable of the new media to try and report medical advances. Keeping the public informed of progress in the fields is a great motivator for medical researchers and funders both. But there really does need to be a rock solid understanding of the science before the editor sends the article to the presses.

Browley cites the loss of seasoned reporters as a potential cause for the (perceived) rise in bad medical reporting. And the unspoken solution is to hire the seasoned writers back.

But maybe there’s a simpler cure than trying to hire those reporters back or training the new reporters in medical research. Expert consultants.

If we can bring more experts into the mass media as individuals who do understand the nuances of the science, the bad medical reporting Browley talks about could be reduced. Yes, you have to trust the expert. And that brings up larger issues that have been talked about before here. But for things like the potential of a cancer treatment to make it out of rat trials and through human trials, that’s not asking much is it?

And, yes, being an expert consultant isn’t exactly glamorous. It stokes your ego when you’re interviewed for, say, CNN. But other researchers don’t look kindly on “selling yourself” like that. But what if it counted for tenure — and if the proceeds went to charity, the institution, or some such?

I don’t know. Anybody out there see problems with this argument?

Rise of the Nerds

Ok, so I don’t watch a lot of network television. And it’s taken me until tonight to finally watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory. And I’ve got to admit that it’s pretty cute and remarkably accurate (scientifically).

And you know what? I’m lukewarm on the show, but I like the direction I see popular tv going. There’s

The Big Bang Theory

Bones

CSI (and all its various manifestations]

NCIS, with the goth girl

You know what, it’s nice to see popular tv promoting intellectual prowess at least as much as athletic prowess, sexual prowess, or, say, dancing prowess.

Now, I’ve got small issues with a lot of these shows/characters. There’s some bad stereotypes and all — but hey, stereotypes are what sitcoms are based on, right?

I’m sure I’m missing a few. Do you know any I’ve forgotten?

International Conspiracy Theorists

I’ve always been fascinated with the conspiracy theory mindset. There’s the surface level rhetoric of taking events that aren’t fully explained and presenting a rationale for them that is plausible — though fully unlikely. But there’s also the deeper issue of why so many people are so willing to subscribe to absolutely absurd explanations for the troubles in the world.

And today there was an article in the NYTimes about conspiracy theories in Pakistan. I didn’t realize this, but Pakistanis are rampant conspiracy nuts who have been blaming their woes on somebody else (the U.S., India, Israel) for decades. That’s got me thinking about conspiracies again – how they form and how they work.

Who buys into them?

Conspiracy nuts tend not to be your typical upstanding citizen who volunteers in the community. But I think we can go deeper than that. Conspiracy nuts tend to be those with at least average intelligence who have been marginalized by society.

My proposed explanation for this is that they are intelligent enough to know they should be doing better in life. Yet they can’t really figure out why they’re doing so poorly (for whatever reason). So, in an attempt to do so, they concoct elaborate theories where their problems in life are not their fault. Their problems in life are the result of an extremely large, invisible plot over which they have no control.

And, in trying to expose that plot, they are able to regain some “control” over the direction of their lives. They are absolved of responsibility for their failings and achieve a renewed sense of purpose and fulfillment.

Who’s the bad guy?

But this is the good one. The bad guy is always a quasi-tangible entity who already has some minor position of power.

Take the article above about Pakistani conspiracy theories. The evil American entity who’s dictating Pakistani life (to the point of cutting off power)? Think tanks. Now, those of us in the U.S. know just how absurd that is. Think tanks tend to be a small group of academics who sit around and debate policy issues. They then communicate those ideas to politicians who may or may not act on them. Think tanks are a pretty weak force in American politics. But they’ve got a mysterious bent to them. What all do they say? To whom? How often are their ideas acted upon? That ambiguity makes them an ideal candidate for a conspiracy theory.

There’s the whole 9-11 Truthers thing. 9-11 was a traumatic day in the U.S. We were completely unprepared for it. And we immediately wanted somebody to blame. There’s those out there who couldn’t imagine it being done by Muslim extremists from the Middle East (I guess the extremists aren’t deemed competent enough?). And the result has been a vast government/corporate conspiracy in which thousands of Americans were killed and a city was sent into metaphoric shock to justify a war that secured oil resources. The explanations tend to focus on ambiguous moments of recent history that are chained together in a way that seems almost plausible. Until you realize how complex the conspiracy network would have to be and that no one from that network ever squealed before the act. But I digress. The perpetrator here is usually taken to be greedy oil corporations and their politician-pawns. We all know that corporations donate prolifically to politicians’ campaign funds. And that those donations buy a certain degree of influence. But how much? Hard to quantify. Again, an entity with some real power, but who’s true power is hard to nail down.

And there’s my personal favorite: the Bilderberg group. There really is a Bilderberg group. They really are a collection of powerful businessmen and former politicians. And they really do meet for a “secret” retreat every year, full of high security and hush-hush conversations. But does the Bilderberg group really control the world’s financial fate? Did they bring the Great Recession on us so that they could make large sums of money? Do they have every major politician in their pocket? Seems absolutely absurd, no? But it’s hard to refute. The group’s members all have a certain degree of power individually and the power of the group as a whole is pretty much unknown.

Can you refute them?

Not really. They’re built around stories and incidents that aren’t fully known. For individual reasons, the bases of conspiracy theories are formed from events in the past that were never fully explained. For national security issues, or just due to their extreme complexity, there’s holes that we can’t really fill in. And those holes become fodder for making the issue far more complex than it really is.

As well, true conspiracy nuts build their identity around these theories. Their purpose in life is to reveal the conspiracy to the world. And, since they have so much invested in the theories, they are very reluctant to give them up. So, combine hazy stories with people committed to believing a certain interpretation of those stories, and you get a very intractable situation.

Should you take them seriously?

I’d love to say no. But then you’ve got the whole “death panel” thing from the Long Hot Healthcare Summer of 2009. And, sometimes, conspiracy theories gain enough traction in the public mind that they can influence national policy — and by extension all of our lives. (there were no death panels, btw — complete fabrication designed to be a scare tactic against Obama’s healthcare plan)

They’re also pretty universal across cultures. Every country seems to have its own form of conspiracy nuts. The U.S. government blowing up its own country. Pakistanis seeing think tanks turning off their water. Iranians professing the holocaust never happened. Rastafarians claiming that the world is ruled by a white Babylonian race. Eurabia, a secret alliance between France and the Islamic World. And, well, you get the point.

These seem to be a natural feature of the human condition. We like to place the fault for our woes on somebody else’s shoulders. And, as long as news coverage is less than 100% explanatory, we’ll have conspiracy theories about evil fast food companies rigging our burgers with explosives garnered from black-ops military groups.

Or, I could be part of the conspiracy and am just trying to force you to drink more Kool-Aid…

Teaching the Rhetoric of Commercials

I’ve been putting together the readings for a course I’m teaching this fall: Text & Discourse. It’s an intro to rhetoric styled course where you’re exposing sophomores to the idea that language has a persuasive aspect. There’s a special emphasis on the presentation of a communication, not just the content of a communication.

And I decided to go with a theme of commercials for the course. I’ve been digging around, and there is just a ton of material out there on commercial rhetoric. I did a google scholar search, and there’s dozens of promising articles.

Tengrrl was kind enough to tweet a link to AdRant, a website that seems to focus on this very issue. (I love this mash-up making slogans into beatnik poetry)

I’m thinking I’ll be doing a combination of commercial styles. The silly ones for kids’ toys, political ads, food, medicine/health care, movies, YouTube-specific, apologetic (like GM’s recent ad), and such.

So, as the semester progresses, I’ll try to post some of the more interesting finds here. From me and from my students.

And if any of you know of good ads, please, please, please, please send them my way. I’d love to have them for the class.