Talking Sense About Science

I believed that the central purpose of journalism is to provide the general population with the accurate and reliable information that they need to function in a free society. However, in the current media environment, it has been argued that much medical science journalism prioritises entertainment value and simplified sound bites, increasing susceptibility to misinformation and distortion of evidence [1,2,3].

In the UK, national newspapers regularly promote stories about “miracle cures” long before the studies required to establish proof of concept or clinical efficacy have been completed [1,4]. Even public service broadcasters frequently report health stories framed around distant or speculative timelines rather than established evidence [2,3]. Each month, the public is exposed to reports of promising research, medical breakthroughs, and potential wonder drugs. The internet further amplifies this problem through unregulated advertising and anecdotal claims of dramatic benefit [5,6]. For scientists and healthcare professionals this can be a source of frustration, but for individuals living with chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson’s disease, such reports can generate unrealistic hope [6,7,8}. In these contexts, evidence is often sparse, and celebrity endorsement may be perceived as a substitute for rigorous scientific evaluation [2,6]. Even when the underlying science is robust, translation from laboratory research to safe and effective clinical therapies is complex, expensive, and time-consuming [7,8,9]. Many promising early-stage findings ultimately fail during clinical development due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable adverse effects, a reality that is rarely communicated clearly to the public.

It is uncommon for celebrities to avoid promoting questionable claims about health and science [10]. Media analyses suggest that celebrity health misinformation was widespread during 2012, consistent with patterns observed in earlier years [11]. Reports ranged from unsubstantiated wellness practices to misleading statements about human physiology and health risks [10,12]. Such claims are not limited to medicine alone and reflect broader issues in public understanding of science and risk communication [3,11].

For readers seeking a constructive response to this landscape, organisations such as Sense About Science provide valuable resources aimed at improving public understanding of evidence and scientific reasoning [13]. The organisation has documented the rise and fall of celebrity-driven health fads and has commissioned expert reviews to address dubious claims circulating in the media. Their analyses highlight recurring misconceptions in areas such as sports psychology, “energy” concepts, and dietary supplementation, emphasising the disconnect between media narratives and scientific evidence. As noted by Sense About Science, celebrity statements often spread rapidly and achieve greater visibility than the research evidence they overshadow [13].

To promote greater scepticism toward celebrity-driven pseudoscience, Sense About Science has highlighted categories of claims that consistently lack scientific support, including so-called “immune boosting,” “detoxification,” and “superfoods,” all of which contradict established principles of human physiology and nutrition [5,6,13].

References 

1. Moynihan R, Cassels A. Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients. New York: Nation Books; 2005.
2. Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e95.
3. Marriott S, Palmer C, Lelliott P. Disseminating healthcare information: getting the message across. Qual Health Care. 2000 Mar;9(1):58-62.
4. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(22):1645–1650.
5. Smith R. In search of “non-disease”. BMJ. 2002;324(7342):883–885.
6. Caulfield T, DeBow S. A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2005 Jun 14;5:12.
7. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
8. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani E, Ioannidis JPA. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med. 2003;114(6):477–484.
9. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(8):711–715.
10. Hoffman SJ, Tan C. Following celebrities’ medical advice. BMJ. 2013;347:f7151.
11. Bauer MW, Jensen P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(1):3–11.
12. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed. JAMA. 2002;287(9):1132–1136.
13. Sense About Science. Making Sense of Celebrity Health Claims. London  [accessed 12 Oct 2012].