A couple of months ago I read an article on a usually solid news outlet, Neurosciencenews. An inference from reading the article was that the reported findings came from a study of people and that the findings applied to people. However, studies involving human subjects generally give the sample size (e.g., N= ). This one did not. I therefore went to the published paper referenced in the article. The study was done in mice, which was never mentioned in the article. That was an important omission. Given the usual good reputation of the news source and the details described in the article, I am fairly certain that the reporter did read the published paper. Nonetheless, he/she left out one of the cardinal questions in journalism: Who? Who were the study subjects? Mice!
This is troublingly remniscent of the University of Maryland study debacle, “chocolate milk can prevent concussions,” that HNR was instrumental in uncovering! It’s doubly disturbing in that it indicates both the willingness of some researchers to obfuscate or even mislead, and the willful lack of due diligence among some media when covering medical/health/science stories! Glad you’re back on the case!
I will always remember your role in helping to uncover that U of Maryland debacle. I'm not sure this vitamin K episode is an example of obfuscation or misleading info on the part of the researchers. They made disclosures. And their limitations section in the paper was clear. They did what the peer-reviewed journal asked. This was about flawed journalism. And I hope readers learn from this and other such examples. I will try to provide tools and reminders to help them evaluate claims, analyze studies, and ask good questions.
So good to see your insights again, Gary! Missed you!
A couple of months ago I read an article on a usually solid news outlet, Neurosciencenews. An inference from reading the article was that the reported findings came from a study of people and that the findings applied to people. However, studies involving human subjects generally give the sample size (e.g., N= ). This one did not. I therefore went to the published paper referenced in the article. The study was done in mice, which was never mentioned in the article. That was an important omission. Given the usual good reputation of the news source and the details described in the article, I am fairly certain that the reporter did read the published paper. Nonetheless, he/she left out one of the cardinal questions in journalism: Who? Who were the study subjects? Mice!
Wonderful post Gary. Keep it up.
This is troublingly remniscent of the University of Maryland study debacle, “chocolate milk can prevent concussions,” that HNR was instrumental in uncovering! It’s doubly disturbing in that it indicates both the willingness of some researchers to obfuscate or even mislead, and the willful lack of due diligence among some media when covering medical/health/science stories! Glad you’re back on the case!
I will always remember your role in helping to uncover that U of Maryland debacle. I'm not sure this vitamin K episode is an example of obfuscation or misleading info on the part of the researchers. They made disclosures. And their limitations section in the paper was clear. They did what the peer-reviewed journal asked. This was about flawed journalism. And I hope readers learn from this and other such examples. I will try to provide tools and reminders to help them evaluate claims, analyze studies, and ask good questions.
So happy to have you back Gary!
I'm still learning from you and picking up skills. Many thanks! It's good to see you writing again.
Very important piece. Keep shining that light!
Welcome back Gary. The misinformation issue is even worse now, what with anybody writing on any medium, and AI added in. What to believe, even trust?