When preeclampsia studies are reported in the news, there’s rarely enough background to evaluate, from the news article alone, how important the research is, or how strong the findings are, or how likely they are to lead to some sort of improvement in care or treatment of preeclampsia. That’s just a consequence of the way news reporting happens these days; preeclampsia is hard to explain, column inches are scarce, and science reporting divisions have largely been cut from media staff.
Really, when a new bit of research is published in the media, it’s an announcement that some new research was published and then put into an attention-getting wrapper. And that’s all. The way science is handled in the media has become so predictable that it’s been the subject of parody lately.
So it’s best to be a bit leery of media coverage of this condition, if you’re trying to learn true things about preeclampsia. Take, as an example, the widespread coverage in October 2010 of an interesting paper published in the journal Nature.
The Guardian , a UK newspaper, reported it as the discovery of “the root cause” of preeclampsia.
A medical news aggregator, MedPage Today, picked up the story, and got more specific and more cautious.
We had a lively discussion at the Preeclampsia Foundation Forums.
The British National Health Service responded with a thorough discussion.
And I asked the PF’s Medical Board to weigh in (anonymously).
It’s almost stunning to realize that all of these conversations and reports are about the same scientific paper.
The advantage to the coverage from the NHS or the PF lies largely in their ability to tap experts - actual authorities in preeclampsia - and to use background information about the disease to illustrate the current state of the research and how this new information fits into the greater context of what is already known about hypertensive pregnancy disease. They’re also both willing to say that *they don’t know things* - which, since there are a lot of unknown things about these conditions, is very likely to be the best possible answer to some questions.
This research blog is going to attempt to illustrate the current state of the research, put it into context, explain the statistics, and bring in principal investigators and PF volunteers with professional skills in this area to comment on their research and interests in the disease. And I’ll be shooting my mouth off as I usually do (for those of you who know me from the forums.)
This process works best if you, the reader, ask us a bunch of questions, partly because that way we can figure out what we forgot to explain well, and partly because many of our posters are very well-informed and will know the answer to your question before a blogger can respond. Having an in-depth discussion with other people over how good an explanation is, and finding the weak spots, gives you the best reason to trust the research of all - you know, then, the extent of the explanatory power of the claims made by the researchers. The crucial point is that the research is only trustable if peer review agrees that the study and argument are sound and that it provides a novel explanation of the phenomena it studies - and even then, it might be wrong. Newton had a great explanation of how gravity worked that covered a bunch of phenomena better than anyone else had before him, and then Einstein came along. Some stuff we believe now about preeclampsia is also bound to be wrong.
It isn’t unusual for our posters here at the PF to ask the same questions that researchers are asking. Please don’t hesitate to jump in and get involved; anyone hit by this disease deserves the best explanations and we’ll be trying to find the right people to provide them.