There has been an exponential increase in the use of digital media by young people in last ten years, including social networking, mobile applications (apps), video sharing, podcasts, on-line games and the ever-popular short messaging services (SMS or texts). Facebook now has around 900 million members. Digital media offers the potential to deliver sexual health interventions to those who are already making use of these technologies and are confident in using them as part of their lives. Indeed, in the UK, apps have been developed for the NHS and a number of sexual health interventions have used digital media for sexual health promotion. But how exactly are young people using these technologies for communications between each other about sexual health?
There has been a flurry of media activity in the last week about the merits of breast versus formula milk following the publication and associated press release of a U.S. study that examined whether breastfeeding is associated with better health and academic outcomes. It is fair to say that the media in general have gone to town in their interpretations of this study with headlines such as breast milk is ‘no better for a baby than bottled milk and it INCREASES the risk of asthma’ and ‘Hold the guilt! New study finds benefits of breastfeeding dramatically overstated’. Such headlines question decades of research which has shown the benefits of breast milk for infants (see WHO and NHS guidelines) so what did this study do that enabled the media to make such extreme statements?
We’re far enough into 2014 that most of those New Year’s resolutions are either firmly embedded lifestyle changes, or, more likely, blissfully disregarded. Of the things that people give up at the start of a new year, alcohol is among the most common, and there are usually associated reports of the benefits of reducing your alcohol intake, as highlighted by the BBC in January, for example. Drinking is one of those interesting behaviours; interesting in terms of the complexity of the association with various health outcomes. For those drinking at the very high end of the spectrum, it is usually quite clear that this has a negative impact on their health. However, advice is often that moderate drinking needn’t be detrimental, and in fact, some types of alcohol are promoted for their health benefits (here’s a good commentary discussing some of those beliefs in relation to the heart, for example). Given the potential complexity of the association, people often find it hard to know how much drinking is too much, at least in terms of the possible effects on their health. A study published in the journal Neurology at the start of the year sought to examine that question, specifically focussing on how alcohol intake affects changes in cognitive function over time in middle-aged adults. Given the topic, the study was widely reported in the media, with articles in the Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail, for example.
We at the Young Academy of Scotland (YAS) launched Research the Headlines 6 months ago this week on August 29th at one of our plenary meetings. Since then we have written on a broad range of topics reflecting the multi-disciplinary nature of the YAS, from weather forecasting to battles over homework to the quality of breast milk. Some of our pieces have commented on examples of good reporting while others have highlighted where there has been no science about the story.
Food packaging has become a controversial issue of late, mostly related to the plastic waste that goes into landfill, but it is now coming under fire from a different direction. The front page of Thursday’s (20th February) Daily Express screamed “Cancer Danger in Food Packs”, whilst the Guardian ran a piece entitled “Chemicals leaching into food from packaging raise safety concerns”. Are plastics in our food packaging slowly poisoning us, or is this just another chemical scare story?
Cancer is caused by unrestrained division of cells, which in turn is caused by mutated genes. How and why such an uncontrolled cellular proliferation takes place is not fully understood; and this lack of understanding stands in the way of an effective cure. One intriguing finding about the regulation of cell growth is that gravity, or the lack thereof, has a significant effect on the process. This was the topic of a recent paper by a team of scientists from Denmark and Germany, which was reported by a number of news outlets starting with Popular Science and subsequently by newspapers including the Daily Mail. The cause of excitement was an unusual question – does a trip to space hold the secret to curing cancer?
So I am spending a lot of time breast feeding at the moment, and I am tired (understatement!) but confident that the effort is worth it because ‘breast is best’ and ‘every breast feed counts’. I then come across an article in the Daily Mail that claims that formula feeding may be better! Specifically they state that “research also shows that the quality of breast milk varies greatly from woman to woman, with different amounts of vitamins, minerals, sugars, fats and other nutrients. In some cases, the quality is so low that formula may be better”. Wow! What a statement! It completely contradicts the WHO recommendations and NHS advice.
Human papilloma virus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). HPV can cause a range of conditions, from genital warts to several forms of cancer. It is sufficiently serious that in the UK, girls between 12 and 13 are offered vaccinations by the NHS to protect against cervical cancer. A recent press release from researchers at Penn State University warns that HPV may be more prevalent in hospital environments than previously thought. While less common, HPV can be transmitted non-sexually, and hence patients could potentially be infected without realising it. This might seem quite shocking – surely doctors and nurses are aware of this?
When suffering from a cold, you probably reach for the orange juice and a dose of vitamin C. The enduring popularity of vitamin C as a cure-all is in no small part down to respected chemist and two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, who advocated large doses against many diseases –so-called megavitamin therapy – late in his life. Despite the complete lack of evidence of any beneficial effect, the connection endures to this day. Pauling also promoted vitamin C as a cure for cancer, although his study of terminally ill patients was found to be badly flawed and actually suggested negative effects of vitamin C as a treatment. Yet alternative practitioners still promote this “all-natural” medicine, and a recent study has been widely publicised with headlines such as “Vitamin C can help ‘keep cancer at bay’”. The media is full of conflicting reports around vitamin C – a cursory search on the Daily Mail website throws up all manner of positive and negative contradictory coverage – so was Pauling right all along?
The genesis of this post comes from a chance viewing of a colleague’s comment on Linkedin, possibly the first time I’ve ever had anything really useful come from that particular social network. Anyway, to get to the point, my colleague posted a link to a BBC news story: “Stem cell ‘major discovery’ claimed” by Health and Science Reporter, James Gallagher. Something about the second sentence set my teeth on edge and made me decide to write this blog:
“Scientists in Japan showed stem cells can now be made quickly just by dipping blood cells into acid.”
I would like to look at this BBC news story and the reporting of the same research by the Guardian “Simple way to make stem cells…” with the aim of making a point about good and bad science reporting.
researchtheheadlines.org 