Media distortion damages both science and journalism

[muriel_volestrangler]

A piece by Simon Baron-Cohen on how the media misreports studies, in particular on autism. He focuses on a study that was somewhat related to autism, but which led to misleading headlines, and scaremongering about eugenics. And if you think that's an exaggeration, look at DU's own response to the story.

I work in one of those sensitive areas of research, autism, in which the facts are liable to be misreported or - sometimes worse - misinterpreted. Our problems go back to 1998 with a report in The Lancet by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues of what appeared to them to be a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Subsequent research failed to support this association, so given the huge potential risk to public health in raising parents' anxieties about the safety of the MMR vaccine - plus the fact that with hindsight most people thought the media had got it very wrong - I had expected responsible journalists would be reluctant to give the MMR/autism story much further coverage. I was wrong. The media kept the story alive, despite the fact that evidence supporting it was tenuous at best, or even downright contradictory.

The MMR/autism story is perhaps not an example of misreporting per se, more one of amplification or exaggeration of the risks, but even so its effect has been serious. Parental fears about the reported dangers of MMR led to a fall in the number of British toddlers being vaccinated to below the level needed for "herd immunity", with a consequent dangerous increase in the number of cases of measles.
...
My personal experience of the misreporting of autism research occurred on 12 January this year, when one of the UK's serious newspapers, The Guardian, used its front page to report our new study, published in the British Journal of Psychology. This showed a positive correlation between levels of fetal testosterone (measured via amniocentesis) and the number of "autistic traits" the child shows post-natally. These are not necessarily indicative of autism: children with autism have a high number of them, but our children were all developing "typically" - that is, they did not have autism.
...
While the reporters who wrote the article understood the design of the study, it didn't stop the subeditors devising a headline which announced, wrongly, "New research brings autism screening closer to reality", while the strapline read, "Call for ethics debate as tests in the womb could allow termination of pregnancies". The front page also featured a photo of a fetus - an emotive image bound to trigger interest in everyone from campaigners against abortion, parents (especially those expecting babies), and readers curious about what scientists are doing to babies at such a vulnerable stage. What did the caption say? "The discovery of a high level of testosterone in prenatal tests is an indicator of autism."

As the senior author of this study, which had nothing to do with autism screening, let alone prenatal autism screening, I was saddened to see how the report was headlined. Sadness turned to shock at the statement that high prenatal testosterone predicts that the fetus will develop autism. The study had not looked at diagnosed cases of autism, only at children developing typically. It had not found that a high level of fetal testosterone predicts autism: it had simply found a correlation between individual differences in the hormone levels (we all have testosterone, some more than others) and individual differences in sociability, communication skills, attention to detail, attention-switching and interest in fiction. Inside the paper it got worse. There I found an article elaborating on the study and on autism, this time with the headline: "Disorder linked to high levels of testosterone in the womb".

The blatant distortions in headlines and picture captions forced me to write to the newspaper - which quickly agreed to publish a response from me. I say "forced" for two reasons. At the research centre we received distressed emails from readers. Some were offended because the report implied that our research had a sinister eugenics agenda; it does not. Others came from anxious pregnant women who wanted to get hold of this prenatal test to find out if their fetus would develop autism; there is no such test.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.300-media-distortion-damages-both-science-and-journalism.html?full=true

[beam me up scottie]

1. Recommended.

Will finish reading tomorrow, thanks for posting.

[cosmik debris]

2. There is no way to hold the media accountable

for the damage they do.

In fact some "journalists" make their entire income from preying on those with poor critical thinking skills and those who make emotional decisions about scientific matters.

You don't have to leave this forum to see evidence of that.

[Jim__]

3. Media distortion? Distortions that just happened to land his study on the front page.

While the media is well-known for distorting the truth, the professor's article contains more distortions than I can find in the original article. And, the "distortions" in the original article appear to be due to direct quotes from the professor, direct quotes that landed the report of his study on the front page.

Here is the professor's claim in his article:

As the senior author of this study, which had nothing to do with autism screening, let alone prenatal autism screening, I was saddened to see how the report was headlined. Sadness turned to shock at the statement that high prenatal testosterone predicts that the fetus will develop autism.

Here's what the article actually had to say:

The breakthrough study by Cambridge University's autism research centre has followed 235 children from birth to the age of eight. It found that high levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women was linked to autistic traits, such as a lack of sociability and verbal skills, in their children by the time they are eight.

Yes, he can always appeal to the caption under the picture, but he's even distorted that:

While the reporters who wrote the article understood the design of the study, it didn't stop the subeditors devising a headline which announced, wrongly, "New research brings autism screening closer to reality", while the strapline read, "Call for ethics debate as tests in the womb could allow termination of pregnancies". The front page also featured a photo of a fetus - an emotive image bound to trigger interest in everyone from campaigners against abortion, parents (especially those expecting babies), and readers curious about what scientists are doing to babies at such a vulnerable stage. What did the caption say? "The discovery of a high level of testosterone in prenatal tests is an indicator of autism."

It appears that it's the professor who is engaging in distortion, the exact distortion that he accuses the paper of. I wonder where the paper got the idea that this was a "breakthrough study." The good professor certainly doesn't object to that in his complaint.

And then, of course, there's his complaint about the strapline. The strapline comes straight from a quote from the professor, a quote I don't seem him denying in his article:

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the research team, told the Guardian that it is now time to start considering where society stands on the issue.

"If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population?" he said. "We should start debating this. There is a test for Down's syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism is often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition."

The research could, equally controversially, open the way for treatment, he said. "We could do something about it. Some researchers or drug companies might see this as an opportunity to develop a pre-natal treatment. There are drugs that block testosterone. But whether we'd want to would be a different matter."

This appears to be the professor talking loosely to the media in a way that got his study front page coverage. Then, when there were political repercussions, he blamed the media.

[Orrex]

4. LeftishBrit made some excellent points in that earlier DU thread about the article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3686785#3686841

As did you, by the way:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3686785#3686987

[SidDithers]

5. Damn, wish I'd seen this yesterday...

the 24 hour rec window is closed.

Good article, and thanks for posting.

Sid.