Media coverage of scientific discoveries is subject to increasing scrutiny.
Scientists often complain that the press sensationalizes research to get more clicks.
But what about the relationship between the way scientists report their findings and the way the media reports them to the public?
31% more media coverage for articles omitting “mice” in the title
A new study published today in PLOS Biology found a significant association between the titles of articles and the headlines of news articles, suggesting that journalists tend to follow the authors’ decision to omit from the title the fact that a particular study is about mice and not humans.
Especially when it comes to authors of scientific papers. Leaving aside the basic fact that a study was conducted on mice and not humans, the journalists covering this newspaper tend to do the same .
These articles also receive 31% more media coverage and twice as many tweets and retweets.
Mouse models of Alzheimer’s are just that
The paper is based on 623 scientific papers published in 2018 and 2019 that used mice in experimental research into Alzheimer’s disease.
The researchers divided these papers into two groups: those that stated in their titles that mice were the main type of study, and those that omitted any reference to mice in the title of the paper.
Not to mention that a study is based on mice is a bit misleading.
“In biomedical studies, the species used is assumed to be human,” states the current publication, “unless the authors indicate otherwise.”
“For this reason,” they say continue, “Most books and guidelines for writing a title of a scientific paper advise authors that the species used in the study should be indicated in the title of the article” when that species is not human.
Science communicators acknowledged?
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to present scientific evidence that the way scientists talk about science report, plays a role in how journalists report on science news,” the authors write.
“News headlines that omit mice as a primary subject of study may mislead the public as to the current state of Alzheimer’s research while raising false hope for patients and their families.”
“We have to remember that most people only read the headlines of news articles,” said co-author Marcia Triunfol.
So if the headline omits that the Alzheimer’s study was conducted in mice, then most people will be under the impression that the study results apply to humans, which is not true.
And that’s especially important for Alzheimer’s, says Triunfol, because “we now know that virtually all of the knowledge that has been gained in animal studies in Alzheimer’s disease does not translate to humans.”
The study had several limitations, the most important of which was that it was limited to studies on Alzheimer’s disease.
But the authors are already planning a follow-up study to further investigate why scientists omit the word “mice” from the titles of their studies.
A lot of previous research has shown that article titles are extremely important as they are “the first point of contact with a potential reader”.
As such, they are a crucial element in attracting readers.
Research: “What doesn’t make the headlines or titles of Alzheimer’s articles? #InMice”Authors: Triunfol M, Gouveia FC (2021)Published in: PLoS Biol 19(6): e3001260DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001260Photo: via Pexels
.
