Study Points to Press Releases as Sources of Hype
By Chris Woolston,
Nature News
| 12. 12. 2014
Untitled Document
Researchers love to blame the news media when reports about science are misleading or even wrong. But a December study1 making the rounds online suggests that much of the hype and misinformation about health-related research in the news has its roots in university press releases — which are almost always approved in advance by the researchers themselves. “Academics should be accountable for the wild exaggerations in press releases of their studies,” tweeted Catherine Collins, a dietitian who works for the National Health Service in London. But some say that others are to blame. Steve Usdin, editor and co-host of BioCentury This Week, a US public-affairs show covering the biopharma industry, tweeted:
The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), examined 462 press releases produced by the leading 20 UK research institutions in 2011. Overall, 40% of those releases contained health advice that was more explicit than anything found in the actual article. One-third emphasized possible cause and effects when the paper merely reported correlations. And 36% of releases about studies of cells...
Related Articles
By Oscar Lopez, The Guardian | 07.19.2026
Diogo Amaro met his future husband, Loup, in Paris and from the first date, he made one thing clear: he wanted to have children.
“Right off the bat, I was like: ‘If I’m going to be in a relationship with...
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
The title of this book is clever, not least because it is borrowed from a very secret society of a dozen Stanford students. Theo Baker, a gregarious computer science freshman, was interviewed by the hyper-rich anonymous entrepreneur who quietly assembled the members. The unspoken suggestion was that he might consider hiring some of the members in service of acquiring his next billion. (Either Baker was not offered a place or he is not admitting it.) Such are the ways of...
