A few weeks ago, Dr. Tomas Prolla from UW’s Departments of Genetics and Medical Genetics published a paper on aging in mice in the prestigious scientific journal, Cell. Soon after, a succession of articles in media outlets across the globe were published, describing how a ‘breakthrough’ had been made, the ‘key to longevity’ had been discovered, and the imminent ‘fountain of youth’ is to come.
These articles mostly described how the enzyme described in the study, Sirt3, is able to stop cells from dying, and bring scientists closer to the development of anti-aging drugs. It seems, from the media’s portrayal at least, that these findings will revolutionize medicine and improve human life spans dramatically.
However, one familiar enough with the media coverage of science might have predicted what is to come. If one were to trace the source, it would be apparent that the original research article did not contain the promises as described by the media. The title of the paper: “Sirt3 Mediates Reduction of Oxidative Damage and Prevention of Age-Related Hearing Loss under Caloric Restriction.” Yes, the paper describes how age-related hearing loss has been delayed in mice.
While it would be most delightful if the prevention of hearing loss could easily be extrapolated to the prevention of aging, such hope is nowhere close to reality. As anyone familiar with the biological sciences would tell you, life is complicated. The enzymes in cells are nothing like the simplistic mechanisms that some science journalists often describe. In fact, if one were to ask a biological scientist about what characterizes biological research, it would be that things mostly do not work as expected.
Furthermore, it should be noted the study was conducted on mice. While it is true mice are widely studied owing to their relatedness to humans, millions of years of evolution have driven mice to diverge far enough from humans that many things just don’t work the same. This is why making progress in medicine is difficult; most basic studies in mice do not translate well to clinical trials in humans. This is the typical road in biomedical science. Scientists discover pathway after pathway in model animals, only to later face disappointment when they find the pathway to be different in humans.
Thus, it is regrettable the media continues to cover science news in such a bombastic and overhyped style. The first concern of the journalist should be to strive for accuracy, and such practices of exaggerating discoveries go exactly against that. Though it is understandable journalists want articles that capture attention, misrepresenting science to the general public must always be avoided, for all the problems that it potentially could bring up.
In modern society, the media holds a crucial role in transmitting information to the people. While there are experts in the many different fields, such as government, science, industry, and business, it is up to the media to assimilate, process and present that information to the general public. With great power, however, comes great responsibility – spreading misinformation concerning science is a great irresponsibility on the part of some journalists.
Unfortunately, media misinformation of science has proved to be a pervasive problem yet to be solved. Case in point? Certain politically charged news networks that unabashedly try to seed doubt into the conclusions of climate change, despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature. This has horrific real world implications: With enough government officials being bought into the media’s agenda, legislations on policies needed to mitigate the pressing climate-related problems are brought down to a halt.
Ultimately, though, this practice also harms the very enterprise of science. By continuing to feed the public overhyped news that is then followed by the harsh shortfalls of reality, the media is damaging the reputation of scientists. To the public, repeated failures to fulfill promises increasingly make it seem that scientists are incompetent. In addition, there is a danger that the public will start to disbelieve reports of scientific ‘breakthroughs’, which can be a problem when real, significant progress is made and can no longer capture the public’s attention.
The current state of science journalism, with the rampant exaggeration and simplification, deserves censure. However, no progress will be made until the culpable journalists realize that their desire to capture attention does not serve any parties other than their own well. Until that happens, the public must avoid being deceived by the words of irresponsible science journalists. Take the promise of the immortality pill with a grain of salt.
Albert Budhipramono ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in biology.
