We often come across news articles discussing scientific and medical advancements, typically claiming that treatments or cures are just around the corner. Although these do not refer to promotions for unverified solutions, they originate from organizations such as CBS, Yahoo, or the Chicago Tribune. Such pieces are frequently authored by journalists who may lack formal training in science or medicine, which can lead to potential misunderstandings or direct duplication of press materials.
The trustworthiness of press releases issued by universities or companies is also dubious. These documents are created by non-expert PR writers intending to portray their institutions and researchers in a favorable light. While researchers may occasionally review these releases for correctness, they are often pressured to inflate claims, affecting promotions and incentives.
Various warning signs in news articles or the original research can indicate dubious findings. For example, a study with an insufficient number of participants fails to yield meaningful results and generalizability. Although there isn’t a fixed participant requirement, pharmaceutical trials typically involve hundreds, while surgical studies might need merely a few dozen. Furthermore, the demographic makeup of participants should accurately reflect the target population; skewed gender, ethnicity, or educational backgrounds can undermine the validity of results.
The lack of a solid control group or methodology further challenges the credibility of research. In the absence of controls, evaluating treatment effectiveness is not feasible. Retrospective studies mainly propose possibilities that necessitate further investigation and do not provide conclusive evidence.
Another frequent problem is how non-scientific journalists misinterpret correlations as causations. A correlation denotes a temporal link between two events but does not confirm causative relationships. For instance, the connection between childhood chemical exposure and adult cancer is correlational, not causal, due to many potential confounding factors.
Confounding variables, which researchers must acknowledge, represent substantial obstacles as well. Ignoring various traumatic elements in a study connecting childhood abuse to adult mental health issues renders its findings invalid.
Be cautious of open-label trials where participants or researchers are aware of treatment assignments, as this can introduce bias. Awareness of group allocations can lead to conscious or unconscious effects on reported outcomes and participant experiences, including placebo influences.
Assuming that successful rodent studies indicate feasible human treatments is another fallacy. Only a small percentage of these trials result in effective therapies for humans, with an average gap of 17 years from initial rodent research to available products.
Always assess claims of scientific or medical breakthroughs critically before accepting them, even if you lack a scientific background. M. Bennet Broner is a medical ethicist.