Explore the vast range of titles available.

There has been growing concern about the phenomenon of science hype, the tendency to exaggerate the value or near‐future application of research results. Although this is a problem that touches every area of biomedicine, the topic of genetics seems to be particularly prone to enthusiastic predictions. The world has been told for over two decades‐by the media, researchers, politicians, and the biotech industry‐that a genome‐driven health care revolution is just around the corner. And while the revolution never seems to arrive, the hopeful rhetoric continues. It has been suggested that this unrelenting “genohype” is having a range of adverse social consequences, including misleading the public and hurting the long‐term legitimacy of the field. While we need more good data on the nature and magnitude of these possible harms, few would argue with the proposition that sustained science hype is a bad thing. We all benefit from robust science and accurate public representations of biomedical research. But, to date, there has been very little consideration of the degree to which the scholarship on the related ethical, legal, and social issues has been hyped. Are the conclusions from ELSI scholarship also exaggerated?

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly being integrated into conventional medical care for cancer, used to counter the side effects of conventional cancer treatment, and offered as an alternative to conventional cancer care. Our aim is to gain a broader understanding of trends in CAM interventions for cancer and crowdfunding campaigns for these interventions. GoFundMe campaigns fundraising for CAM were retrieved through a database of crowdfunding campaign data. Search terms were drawn from two National Institutes of Health lists of CAM cancer interventions and a previous study. Campaigns were excluded that did not match these or related search terms or were initiated outside of June 4th, 2018 to June 4th, 2019. 1,396 campaigns were identified from the US (n = 1,037, 73.9%), Canada (n = 165, 11.8%), and the UK (n = 107, 7.7%). Most common cancer types were breast (n = 344, 24.6%), colorectal (n = 131, 9.4%), and brain (n = 98, 7.0%). CAM interventions sought included supplements (n = 422, 30.2%), better nutrition (n = 293, 21.0%), high dose vitamin C (n = 276, 19.8%), naturopathy (n = 226, 16.2%), and cannabis products (n = 211, 15.1%). Mexico (n = 198, 41.9%), and the US (n = 169, 35.7%) were the most common treatment destinations. These findings confirm active and ongoing interest in using crowdfunding platforms to finance CAM cancer interventions. They confirm previous findings that CAM users with cancer tend to have late stage cancers, cancers with high mortality rates, and specific diseases such as breast cancer. These findings can inform targeted responses where facilities engage in misleading marketing practices and the efficacy of interventions is unproven.

Examines the portrayals of platelet rich plasma (PRP), which has become increasingly popular in the past decade for treating sports-related musculoskeletal injuries, in English-language newspapers published in Australia, Canada, Ireland, NZ, the UK, and the USA. Argues that while news media coverage of PRP exhibits very few common hallmarks of hype, its portrayal as a routine treatment used by elite athletes and celebrities creates an implicit hype which can contribute to public misunderstandings of the efficacy of PRP. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

Purpose This study investigated the portrayal of “personalized” and “precision” medicine (PM) in North American news over the past decade. Content analysis of print and online news was conducted to determine how PM has been defined and to identify the frames used to discuss PM, including associated topics, benefits, and concerns. Methods A data set was built using the FACTIVA database, searching for popular North American publications with the terms “personalized (personalised) medicine” and/or “precision medicine” from 1 January 2005 to 15 March 2016. The final set of publications totaled 774. Results PM is almost exclusively defined as related to genetics and is often part of a story related to cancer. The PM story is overwhelmingly one of highlighting (potential) benefits and optimism, especially in shorter publications, and ones where PM is not the main focus. This promotional PM discourse has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. Conclusion The numerous concerns associated with PM have received little attention over the past decade, especially in articles more likely to be encountered by a more general audience. This promotion of PM serves as an example of the science hyping that takes place in science reportage and may have implications for consumers, public expectations, and related health policy.

The term \"lockdown\" has become a powerful and perverted word in the infodemic about democracies' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown, as used in public discourse, has expanded to include any public health measure, even if it places little to no restriction on social mobility or interaction. Here, Murdoch and Caulfield discuss the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures and how this phenomenon has damaged trust in public health initiatives designed to keep people safer.

ObjectiveTo identify the frequency and qualitative characteristics of stem cell-related marketing claims made on websites of clinics featuring common types of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. The involvement of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners in the marketing of stem cell therapies and stem cell-related interventions is understudied. This research explores the extent to which they are involved and collaborate with medical professionals. This knowledge will help with identifying and evaluating potential policy responses to this growing market.DesignSystematic website analysis.SettingGlobal. US and English-language bias due to methodology.Main outcome measuresRepresentations made on clinic websites in relation to practitioner types, stem cell therapies and their targets, stem cell-related interventions. Statements about stem cell therapies relating to evidence of inefficacy, limited evidence of efficacy, general procedural risks, risks specific to the mode of therapy, regulatory status, experimental or unproven nature of therapy. Use of hype language (eg, language that exaggerates potential benefits).Results243 websites offered stem cell therapies. Many websites advertised stem cell transplantation from multiple sources, such as adipose-derived (112), bone marrow-derived (100), blood-derived (28), umbilical cord-derived (26) and others. Plant stem cell-based treatments and products (20) were also advertised. Purposes for and targets of treatment included pain, physical injury, a wide range of diseases and illnesses, cosmetic concerns, non-cosmetic ageing, sexual enhancement and others. Medical doctors (130), chiropractors (53) and naturopaths (44) commonly work in the clinics we found to be offering stem cell therapies. Few clinic websites advertising stem cell therapies included important additional information, including statements about evidence of inefficacy (present on only 12.76% of websites), statements about limited evidence of efficacy (18.93%), statements of general risks (24.69%), statements of risks specific to the mode(s) of therapy (5.76%), statements as to the regulatory status of the therapies (30.86%) and statements that the therapy is experimental or unproven (33.33%). Hype language was noted (31.69%).ConclusionsStem cell therapies and related interventions are marketed for a wide breadth of conditions and are being offered by complementary and alternative practitioners, often in conjunction with medical doctors. Consumer protection and truth-in-advertising regulation could play important roles in addressing misleading marketing practices in this area.

Against hyperbole, distortion, and overselling The way science is represented to the public can influence understanding and expectations, frame policy debates, and affect the implementation and use of emerging technologies. Inaccurate representations of research may, for example, lead to public confusion about the readiness of a technology for clinical application. As a result, the issue of science “hype”—in which the state of scientific progress, the degree of certainty in models or bench results, or the potential applications of research are exaggerated—is receiving increased attention from the popular press, the research community, and scientific societies ( 1 ). In newly issued guidelines on the ethical conduct of human pluripotent stem cell research and clinical translation ( 2 ), the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) explicitly recognizes and confronts the issue of science hype. By placing a clear obligation on researchers, the ISSCR hopes to make balance in public representations of research a norm associated with scientific integrity. The focus on public communication, which is new to this version of the guidelines, is the result of both specific concerns regarding how stem cell research has been portrayed in the public sphere and the growing recognition that researchers play an important role in the science communication process.

From a research perspective, the interest in biobanking continues to intensify. Governments and industry have invested heavily in biobanks, as exemplified by initiatives like the United Kingdom Biobank and United States' Precision Medicine Initiative. But despite this enthusiasm, many profound legal and ethical challenges remain unresolved. Indeed, there continues to be disagreements about how best to obtain consent and the degree and nature of control that research participants retain over donated samples and health information. Emerging social trends-including concerns about commercialization and perceived rights of continuing control (\"biorights\")-seem likely to intensify these issues.

While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world's largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation. This study sought to (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com and (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information. We searched \"cancer cure\" on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. We reviewed the books' descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. We considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, we conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer. Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled \"cancer cure\" books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes: (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%), (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%), (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%), (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%), (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%), (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%), (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%), and (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%). The results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.