Scientific accuracy in newspapers

[SteveGrenard]

Well, of course, it depends on the newspaper with some having better reps than others. I don't know where the UK Daily Telegraph stands on editorial accuracy and "fact-checking"
so perhaps some of our UK members can enlighten.

I signed up for Google's news alert service key words "snake venom" and this morning they returned an item from the Uk Daily Telegraph. I have excerpted the
relevant statement below. I have no idea how botox relates to fear of tiny Mexican dogs (chihuahuas).

The reader referred to Botox as "cow poison." The esteemed reporter said no, it was not cow poison (good) ...it was snake venom:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2008/01/19/hruby119.xml



"Botox isn't the big problem, your self-image is. This state of decay
is at least 20 years from where you are now. At 31, there should be
absolutely no fear of droopy lids or chihuahuas. Botox (which, by the
way, is made out of snake venom, not cow poison) can be a wonderful
thing for someone starting to show the cracks."

[Tokenconservative]

What's astonishing to me is that while it's easy to believe that the media gets science and medicine stories so wrong, so many are absolutely horrified by the very suggestion that reporters might tend to present their own socio-political bias in their reporting.

Tokie

[Camillus]

It's a problem page written by a standup comedian. I would imagine the fact checking involved is close to nil.

[Lucky]

Link should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2008/01/19/hruby119.xml

It's rather amusing that so-called 'quality' papers like the Telegraph and the Guardian, for instance, with reasonable science sections, still print ridiculous non-scientific tripe in sections like 'Lifestyle', 'Healthy Living' etc. I would say that the sub-editors in these sections simply do not see it as their responsibility (or in any way necessary) to check the scientific content for accuracy.

I don't think we should be too upset about this little faux pas. It's not the Science section, it's the agony page. And it's not even a staff journalist, it's a guest 'celebrity'. So I don't think many readers would be looking for serious scientific information there.

Still, you are right that they have propagated misinformation – and people will casually believe it. You should write to the editor.

[volatile]

I doubt this even got sub-edited. It's upsetting, of course, but hardly symptomatic of the entire state of science journalism in the UK.

That said, there are plenty of egregious examples of media misstatements of academic papers, particularly in the tabloids. Most of what passes for scientific content in the Daily Maul, for example, is rather laughable.

[SteveGrenard]

I doubt this even got sub-edited. It's upsetting, of course, but hardly symptomatic of the entire state of science journalism in the UK.

That said, there are plenty of egregious examples of media misstatements of academic papers, particularly in the tabloids. Most of what passes for scientific content in the Daily Maul, for example, is rather laughable.

Yes, in fairness to this column it was not a science column so who cares? Well it's not the point. Accurate, even minimally accurate science, needs to be disseminated any way it can. The end result of misstatements such as this one is literally millions of people walking around with the most ridiculous inaccurate information. I am waiting now for cow poison to hit the market, at least three versions: Bov-Tox and Bull-Tox. and one for your backside to be called Butt-Tox w/apologies to Forest Gump.

Even the so-called botox substitute “syn-ake” is not snake venom …it is faux snake venom, fake, a secret formula using a fake name. This is probably where the genius who wrote this beauty column probably got herself confused.


Venom is hot, Botox is not in Beverly Hills
Oct 9, 2006
Contributor: Beauty in Seattle
Read: More of My Posts
Only in Hollywood. Forget human placenta for wrinkle erasing, the town that put Botox on the map is now buzzing about a new trend in anti-aging skin care: snake venom.
Beth Landam at New York Magazine reports that celebrities are on waiting lists to get a $185 anti-aging product UltraLuxe 9 which contains Syn-Ake, a venom-like substance.
The master marketer behind UltraLuxe is Sonya Dakar. For those of us who don't get skin treatment in LA, Sonya operates a shi-shi Beverly Hills skin care clinic that attracts stars like Drew Barrymore, Britney Spears, and Debra Messing. Sonya is equally famous for her pre-award show Beauty Boot Camps.

http://www.realself.com/blog/ultraluxe_viprodex_venom_antiaging_treatment.html

And then there is this fake snake venom product as well with a synthetic syn-ake peptide at 4%…oh boy. At least they got the botulinum toxin right in their blurb:


Peter Thomas Roth Un-wrinkle helps restore lost nutrients due to the aging process and the environment. Wrinkle relaxing and anti-aging peptides help reduce the appearance of fine lines. Contains peptides: SYN-AKE at 4% (synthetic peptide which mimics snake venom activity) and SNAP-8 at 10%, a safer, pain-free alternative to the injected Botulinum Toxin that topically helps target the same wrinkle formation mechanism. SYN-COLL at 3%, Argireline at 3% and Matrixyl 3000 (a dual peptide) at 3% complete
this patent pending blend of six peptides. Helps boost natural collagen production and leaves skin looking soft, smooth and years younger.
http://www.wrinkleadvice.com/


Anyone ever hear of the peptides argireline or matrixyl 3000 or do they make this stuff up as they go along?

[volatile]

Yes, in fairness to this column it was not a science column so who cares? Well it's not the point. Accurate, even minimally accurate science, needs to be disseminated any way it can. The end result of misstatements such as this one is literally millions of people walking around with the most ridiculous inaccurate information.

I agree, of course. I think there are bigger fish to fry in this area before we start on the Sunday supplements, though.

[zooterkin]

Link should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2008/01/19/hruby119.xml

It's rather amusing that so-called 'quality' papers like the Telegraph and the Guardian, for instance, with reasonable science sections, still print ridiculous non-scientific tripe in sections like 'Lifestyle', 'Healthy Living' etc. I would say that the sub-editors in these sections simply do not see it as their responsibility (or in any way necessary) to check the scientific content for accuracy.

I don't think we should be too upset about this little faux pas. It's not the Science section, it's the agony page. And it's not even a staff journalist, it's a guest 'celebrity'. So I don't think many readers would be looking for serious scientific information there.

Still, you are right that they have propagated misinformation – and people will casually believe it. You should write to the editor.

Um, it's supposed to be ridiculous. As Camillus says, Ruby Wax is a comedian. If anything, it's sending up the whole agony page idea. The paragraph preceding the comment about 'snake venom' really should have given it away:
By the way: boobs, this season, are built to jut out sideways, rather than last season's pointing-forward look. The breasts must be pointing one to the right, one to the left, so that when the owner lies down they have to practically break their necks to peer around them.

[Deetee]

Sonya operates a shi-shi Beverly Hills skin care clinic that attracts stars like Drew Barrymore, Britney Spears, and Debra Messing.

http://www.realself.com/blog/ultralu...treatment.html (http://www.realself.com/blog/ultralu...treatment.html)

That meant to be an endorsement or something....?

http://www.topnews.in/files/britney-spears333_0.jpg

[zooterkin]

http://www.realself.com/blog/ultralu...treatment.html (http://www.realself.com/blog/ultralu...treatment.html)

That meant to be an endorsement or something....?

http://www.topnews.in/files/britney-spears333_0.jpg

Hmm, looks remarkably like volatile's avatar...

[volatile]

Yikes! Maybe Britters was a robot all along...

[Lucky]

Um, it's supposed to be ridiculous. As Camillus says, Ruby Wax is a comedian. If anything, it's sending up the whole agony page idea. The paragraph preceding the comment about 'snake venom' really should have given it away:
I'm quite sure Ruby Wax didn't mean it as a joke – she thinks Botox is made from snake venom. As Steve pointed out, she was confusing Botox with SYN-AKE.

From this article (http://www.personalcaremagazine.com/Story.aspx?Story=1218):
SYN®-AKE has been developed as an efficient smoothing and anti-wrinkle care particularly effective against expression lines by relaxing facial muscles. This active tripeptide acts in a manner similar to Waglerin-1, a neuromuscular blocking compound of the venom of the Temple Viper.1
...
SYN-AKE is a synthetic tripeptide derivative that was developed based on the combined expertise of Pentapharm in snake venom research and peptide synthesis.


Also, having looked at the column again, I disagree that it's a send-up. It's written in a facetious, jokey style to show off her comic skills, but the advice is clearly meant to be sound. The line you quoted was making a (serious) point about the Miami Beach women she was describing, and the dangers of becoming obsessed with cosmetic 'improvements'.

The real danger is that if you're obsessing already, then yes, you will soon slide down that slippery Joan Rivers road. My worry is that you'll forever find new things to hack off and tighten, until you end your days so hoiked up that your navel is on your forehead.
Don't kid yourself. This is vanity in its most lethal form.

As for my point about the 'quality' press showing a thorough disregard for scientific accuracy outside the Science sections, if you're disagreeing with this then I'm seriously amazed. See Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) if you need convincing.

A few examples:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=458
http://www.badscience.net/?p=204
http://www.badscience.net/?p=347

[zooterkin]

As for my point about the 'quality' press showing a thorough disregard for scientific accuracy outside the Science sections, if you're disagreeing with this then I'm seriously amazed. See Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) if you need convincing.


No, I agree with the point about mainstream science reporting, and I already hang out on the badscience forums. I just refuse to believe that agony advice from Ruby Wax and Graham Norton is intended to be taken seriously, and that there is any pretence that it is accurate.

ETA: Having watched the video of the two of them (http://www.mediaplayer.telegraph.co.uk/?item=B22C81C4-6EE6-4385-AC47-8BE7B9ADD9A9), I'm not about to change my mind.