Neuroscience in Action: Section 2

Popular Media Piece:

A Stinky Compound May Protect Against Cell Damage, Study Finds by Laura Stampler

http://time.com/2976464/rotten-eggs-hydrogen-sulfide-mitochondria/

Note: The article was revised and corrected after the magazine was criticized for incorrectly interpreting the information. However, original quotes and information can be found in this article, which picks apart Stampler’s original piece: “Scientists Say Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer”.

http://mic.com/articles/93482/no-smelling-farts-won-t-actually-prevent-cancer

Primary Source:

“The synthesis and functional evaluation of a mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide donor, (10-oxo-10-(4-(3-thioxo-3H-1,2-dithiol-5-yl)phenoxy)decyl) triphenylphosphonium bromide (AP39)”

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/md/c3md00323j#!divAbstract

The media piece revolves around an experiment conducted at the University of Exeter. The article explains to the reader that the findings of this experiment demonstrate that the smell of human flatulence and rotten eggs may be useful in repairing cells that were damaged from diseases such as cancer. Stampler reports that the experiment concluded that the exposure of cells to hydrogen sulfide gas prevents their mitochondria from being damaged.

Do you think the popular piece accurately reflects the scientific finding?

The original article was revised and corrected after the author was criticized for her misinterpretation of the experiment. This original article can no longer be found. The original article was called “Scientists Say Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer”, but this title was changed when the article was revised. There are many bloggers and writers, however, that have written pieces criticizing the original article. The original piece was wildly inaccurate.The author exaggerated certain aspects of the research that seemed promising in order to make her article more “media friendly” by offering shocking information to the public. The article went viral immediately after it came out as it basically stated that “smelling farts” could cure cancer.

How are these two different?

As mentioned earlier, Stampler exaggerated certain aspects of the experiment in order to make it more shocking and appealing to the audience. For example, the author had stated that “although the stinky gas can be noxious in large doses, the researchers seem to think that a whiff here and there has the power to reduce risks of cancer, strokes, heart attacks, arthritis and dementia by preserving mitochondria”. This was not at all the result of the experiment. In truth, the experiment simply stated that hydrogen sulfide seems to have a strengthening effect on our mitochondria. There was no mention of cancer or implication that this discovery was in any way a cure for cancer. 

Where is the aspects exaggerated or misrepresented?

According to the primary source, hydrogen sulfide is naturally produced by the body in high quantities and is part of a compound called AP39 which may help strengthen mitochondria. The mitochondria is known for helping to fight certain diseases, however nowhere in the article does it say that these findings prove that hydrogen sulfide could be responsible for preventing diseases such as cancer. This is where the exaggeration comes in. Firstly, the author found her first opportunity to shock and attract with the title : Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer. It is made clear in the article that the cells would have to be exposed to small quantities of hydrogen sulfide NOT farts. Furthermore, the author stated that the experiment proves that hydrogen sulfide is able to cure certain diseases (that were not mentioned in the experiment), when the purpose of the experiment was merely to get an idea of how much of the compound should be used in order to actually be useful in dealing with disease. This is a very big difference!

How would you improve the popular media piece?

The media piece was improved by the author herself, and I believe that this revised piece is much more accurate. If it had been up to me, I would definitely have changed the title. The original was misleading and a complete misinterpretation of information. Furthermore, I would make sure that I am only stating what is absolutely true according to the research. I would take out any over-the-top assertions regarding the healing qualities of hydrogen sulfide on patients with cancer or other such diseases. I would state that the scientists researched the effect of cellular exposure to hydrogen sulfide and found out that the compound strengthens mitochondria. I would say that this research has the potential of becoming very useful in the medical field as researchers continue to look at the amounts of hydrogen sulfide needed in order to prevent certain diseases or aid in treatment.

Popular Media Piece:

“Red meat increases death, cancer and heart risk, says study.” BBC News: Health.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17345967>

The article references a study that associates the risk of death from cancer and heart disease with the consumption of red meat. It suggests the substitution of red meat with other sources of protein and attributes this risk to high levels of saturated fat and sodium.

Primary Literature Article:

“Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies.” Archives of Internal Medicine.

<http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845#ArticleInformation>

The article describes the findings of a 28 year study during which the diets and health status of over 100,000 individuals were recorded and assessed. The study finds that substituting red meat with “healthy dietary components” (such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains) is associated with a 13% lower risk for cardiovascular disease mortality; a 18% lower risk for cancer mortality; and a 10% lower mortality risk overall. The researchers note, however that no distinction was made between processed and unprocessed red meat.

Do you think the popular piece accurately reflects the scientific finding?

I believe that the main scientific finding is accurately reflected (i.e. that the consumption of red meat increases the risk of mortality), but the popular piece is a great deal more aggressive in its propagation of this finding. The scholarly article includes the actual statistics from which the conclusion was drawn, which in this case are not as substantial as the headline of the popular media piece seems to suggest. The scholarly article also addresses flaws and potential biases in the methodology. Most prominently, it evaluates the lack of distinction between processed and unprocessed red meat (as processed meat has higher sodium content). This, however, is not even noted in the BBC article. Hence, the scholarly article presents a balanced evaluation of methodology and its potential effects on the conclusiveness of the study, whereas the popular piece presents the scientific findings as incontrovertible.

How are these two different?

These two different presentations of what is essentially the same material have different impacts on the reception of the material by potential readers. The scholarly article presents the material in a more balanced manner, giving a reader the impression that the conclusions drawn are suggestive, but not definitive. The popular piece, on the other hand, is more sensationalist, causing a potential reader to feel alarmed and inspired to immediately change their diet.

Where are the aspects exaggerated or misrepresented?

The significance of the results is greatly exaggerated by the popular media piece. Its title (“Red meat increases death…”) is aggressive and alarming and implicates extremely significant findings. The study itself, however, found that the consumption of red meat (both processed and unprocessed) is 10% more liable to cause death than the consumption of healthy substitutes. When phrased as such, the findings seem less alarming and more coherent with common knowledge.

How would you improve the popular media piece?

I would improve the popular media in two ways. First of all, I would include more information about the methodology of the experiment (e.g. the age and socio-economic status of the sample, variables controlled for within the experiment, the actual statistics of mortality increase etc.) so as to make the reader more aware of the limitations of the study. Furthermore, I would try to get an interview with the study’s author(s), and include quotes of their recommendation for action. This is because the researchers themselves would have a much better understanding of the significance of their findings, and how they should be acted upon.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140716090734.htm

–          Science Daily’s article was titled as “Health risks posed by ‘third hand’ tobacco smoke.” The research presented claimed to estimate the cancer risk by age group from exposure to third hand tobacco smoke which is defined as dust in the home containing traces of tobacco and tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Children are the most heavily affected age group by third hand smoke as they have the highest increase in cancer incidents.

–          They used a variety of quotes from the scientists involved in the study including one from Dr. Ramirez from York’s Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories. She, far from stating any substantial effects of third hand smoke, said, “While TSNAs have been suspected to form part of third hand smoke as a result of laboratory studies, we have demonstrated for the first time the presence of carcinogenic tobacco-specific compounds, such as TSNAs, in settled house dust found in a panel of smokers’ and non-smokers’ homes. The TSNAs concentrations found in smoke-free homes would suggest that TSNAs formed in smoking environments can persist for extended periods, possibly due to partitioning to ambient particles, and subsequently be transported into non-smokers’ homes from outside.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014001962

–          The actual study had some slightly different things to say.

–          The study stated that third hand smoke had an adverse effect on children that did lead to cancer, but was only slightly above the threshold that the EPA had established. Additionally, third hand smoke, at most, led to one more cancer occurrence per thousand exposures.

–          The study’s conclusion was something slightly less troubling and far more helpful. The researchers concluded that the risk of exposure to third hand smoke should not be neglected, and the effect of third hand smoke on non-smokers and children, especially, should be added to future programs about the effects of smoking.

I would not say that the popular journal is completely misguided, however, it does misrepresent some of the findings by bloating the effects to make the journal more newsworthy. The title of the popular journal illustrates this effect perfectly. “Health risks posed by ‘third hand’ tobacco smoke” does not accurately describe the findings of the study. However, anything less would not be eye catching enough for readers of sciencedaily.com to even click on. This, I feel, is the crux of the misrepresentation problem that has certainly plagued readers for decades, if not centuries. Scientific findings are often misrepresented for the best interest of the popular publisher. These publishers know quite well that most readers are not going to read the firsthand study and essentially have a free pass to bloat the findings of a study in order to attract readers.

The main differences between the popular journal and the actual study are the differences in the representation of the findings of the study. The popular journal claims that the study has found health risks associated with third hand smoke while the study takes a more modest and truthful route stating that they have found possible, not extremely substantial, effects of third hand smoke on cancer and this information should be considered in future education programs.

The exaggerated parts of the article were its claim that the study had found health risks. This gave me an impression of immediate and imminent danger to my wellbeing whereas the truth was much less dangerous, albeit still an additional, considerable effect of smoking.

To improve the second hand journal, one would first and foremost have to change the article name to a something more representative of the actual data such as “Possible effects of third hand smoke” rather than the aforementioned name of the article. Then, one would have to include more data about the effects of third hand smoke found in the study rather than simply stating that third hand smoke has a negative effect on children. One of the biggest areas of improvement would need to be the inclusion of quantitative data.