BBC publish inaccurate information about a paper before paper is published
Posted by gimpy on July 6, 2009
There has been some debate following an article on Ed Yong’s blog on the need or otherwise for embargoes in science journalism stemming from a debate at the World Conference of Science Journalists, which in my opinion ignores a particular bugbear of mine regarding embargoes. Namely, mainstream organisations publicising science stories before the research is available to researchers with subscriptions to the journal it was published in.
Take this article from the BBC on Caffeine and Alzhemiers disease, for example. “Coffee ‘may reverse Alzheimer’s‘” says the headline, note the use of what Language Log calls ‘mendacity quotes‘, indicating that the headline probably does not reflect the content of the article. “Drinking five cups of coffee a day could reverse memory problems seen in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), US scientists say.” says the bolded standfirst, in an example of what I, lacking the the diplomacy of Language Log, call a lie. The article actually describes research on an Alzheimer’s disease model in mice noting that “The mice were given the equivalent of five 8 oz (227 grams) cups of coffee a day – about 500 milligrams of caffeine.“, so that’s mice, given a fixed dose of caffeine, not humans drinking five cups of coffee (cup of what – espresso, latte, weak American pseudo-coffee?). The article goes on to say “When the mice were tested again after two months, those who were given the caffeine performed much better on tests measuring their memory and thinking skills and performed as well as mice of the same age without dementia.“. Is this true? This would be remarkable. How can I find out? I could read the paper, unfortunately the BBC don’t link to the paper, just the journal, and it turns out the paper has not been published yet. The abstract is available and we know the research will be published in Volume 17 Number 3 of the Journal of Alzheimers Research but we don’t know the details beyond the abstract.
Gary W. Arendash, Takashi Mori, Chuanhai Cao, Malgorzata Mamcarz, Melissa Runfeldt, Alexander Dickson, Kavon Rezai-Zadeh, Jun Tan, Bruce A. Citron, Xiaoyang Lin, Valentina Echeverria, Huntington Potter
Caffeine Reverses Cognitive Impairment and Decreases Brain Amyloid-β Levels in Aged Alzheimer’s Disease Mice
Abstract: We have recently shown that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) transgenic mice given a moderate level of caffeine intake (the human equivalent of 5 cups of coffee per day) are protected from development of otherwise certain cognitive impairment and have decreased hippocampal amyloid-β (Aβ) levels due to suppression of both β-secretase (BACE1) and presenilin 1 (PS1)/g-secretase expression. To determine if caffeine intake can have beneficial effects in “aged” APPsw mice already demonstrating cognitive impairment, we administered caffeine in the drinking water of 18-19 month old APPsw mice that were impaired in working memory. At 4-5 weeks into caffeine treatment, those impaired transgenic mice given caffeine (Tg/Caff) exhibited vastly superior working memory compared to the continuing impairment of control transgenic mice. In addition, Tg/Caff mice had substantially reduced Aβ deposition in hippocampus (down 40%) and entorhinal cortex (down 46%), as well as correlated decreases in brain soluble Aβ levels. Mechanistically, evidence is provided that caffeine suppression of BACE1 involves the cRaf-1/NFκB pathway. We also determined that caffeine concentrations within human physiological range effectively reduce active and total glycogen synthase kinase 3 levels in SweAPP N2a cells. Even with pre-existing and substantial Aβ burden, aged APPsw mice exhibited memory restoration and reversal of AD pathology, suggesting a treatment potential of caffeine in cases of established AD.
To be fair to the BBC, the abstract does bring up the cup of coffee factoid, something the authors should be more careful about, but it does not say that the mice performed as well as those without dementia, only that they ‘exhibited memory restoration and reversal of AD pathology’, it does not put a value on that restoration and reversal.
This seems like interesting research, delaying or even reversing AD is an important outcome given an aging population and it would be fascinating if simple dietary methods, such as caffeine consumption, could have measurable effects. But this research does not show this in humans, it uses a mouse model of disease and, while it is interesting and important, represents just a small step forward in an understanding of an AD model – it does not justify caffeine consumption to prevent AD or justify the BBC headline. The BBC have put an inaccurate headline and inaccurate standfirst into the public domain prior to the research being available to journal subscribers. The public impression of this research is now likely to be at odds with the reality, not only that by privileging the media publication over the scientific publication the journal has concluded that the public should receive priority in receiving inaccurate interpretations of research over subscribers reading accurate representation. And they wonder why there is a problem with science communication?
[BPSDB]
kjhaxton said
They publish dubiously accurate articles even when the original article is available to researchers. 11/06/2009 ‘nanoparticle lung threat blocked’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8091141.stm article discusses this paper doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjp002 They at least acknowledge that ‘experts’ say that this work may not be true of all nanoparticles (the blocking nanoparticle lung damage was only true of half the nanoparticles studied by the researchers themselves). This journal article was written to serve press releases however, with subheadings in the results section almost begging to be turned into headlines.
The caffeine thing…well…55 mice are clearly representative of 55 mice under specific experimental conditions. Would it really make a difference if the paper were available? The majority of people would take the BBC article at face value and never look further. Any blog based response would never have the same audience.
gimpy said
I appreciate that if the paper was available the arguments about accuracy would be largely the same, but there is something fundamentally wrong in a system that gives the main stream media the opportunity to corrupt research findings before researchers in the field or interested others get to read the source. It gives advantage to the enemy as it were rather than servicing the needs of the field.
The ‘nanoparticle’ story I think also falls foul of another media tendency to use sciencey sounding words which are meaningless out of context. Nanoparticles are particles measured in nanometers, strange that it happens for some subjects and not others though – you don’t see asteroids described as ‘kiloparticles’…
Catering Supplies said
To be honest i think it is yet another case of papers wanting to “move first, think later”. It is far easier for them to work this way and make the odd mistake, sensationalising their content than to wait on official reports and findings.
————
Robert Daniel
Catering Supplies
Jason said
Thank goodness for compulsory license fees, otherwise the Beeb might have to actually improve!
Hyperbole, of course, as the BBC has produced decades of great material. But these issues really are systemic across science reporting across all media, and documenting every instance and calling them out on it as much as possible, especially in the more egregious cases is integral in illustrating just how badly served the public is by shoddy reporting, lack of rigour, and editorial sensationalism to sell copy or bring in page impressions.
Thanks for addressing this.
gimpy said
It’s not just the BBC misinterpreting this, the Times managed it too. The problem is endemic.
Jason said
Agreed. And the attitude reporters have toward science bloggers is vitriolic when their laziness is pointed out to them. The painfully ironic Steve Connor fiasco from last week further shows how much scorn there is toward “outsiders” who demand accuracy and responsible science journalism from the media. Given the increasingly shaky foundations of their business model, it seems prudent to respond to criticism with more equanimity and reflection.
I just wish there was an easy solution.
Jason said
Oops, the link above should have been here.
CGR said
It gets ‘better’ (please note use of mendacity quotes). The Daily Telegraph has:
The effects of Alzheimer’s disease could be reversed by drinking just a few cups of coffee a day, new research suggests.
I’ve never liked the political PoV of the DT but always thought (past tense) that it had some self-respect in terms of accuracy and measured comment. This is more like a red-top.
CGR said
Well I screwed up the links there. Sorry. The actual headline for the article reads:
Coffee ‘could cure Alzheimer’s’
and I guess I needed a in there as well.
soveda said
I’ve been banging on about these stories for ages, I think they are unprincipled and they only lead to false hopes in vulnerable people and their carers.