Inspired by this post from @garyschwitzer, I'm tweeting a mini-storm about all the MISLEADING ANIMAL-BASED HEALTH PR we wade through EVERY SINGLE DAY. PLEASE RT this thread to let the institutions tagged know that their messaging and claims about human treatment are NOT OK!
First up: @UniofNottingham claims "Father's diet could affect long-term health of his offspring." But only IF THE FATHER IS A MOUSE! Please let these researchers know that there's simply no way a single mouse study can "bridge a gap" to human health.
(See Gary's original post at the top of this thread for links to all of the news releases that I reference in this thread.)
And then there's a "BREAKTHROUGH" in breast cancer treatment from @hkbaptistu -- again in mice! Does anybody SERIOUSLY think it's ok to jerk around women with breast cancer like this? #bcsm
Here's a thought: If universities won't do better, maybe IT's TIME TO START HOLDING THE @EUREKALERT SERVICE OF @AAAS ACCOUNTABLE for the misinformation they disseminate under their banner? Applying our 10 CRITERIA WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT PLACE TO START! healthnewsreview.org/about-us/revie…
Moving on to @RockefellerUniv, which says "a modified version of an important immune cell protein could be used to treat Alzheimer’s disease.” Only later do we learn -- you guessed it -- #INMICE! But how does that claim even make sense when mice don't actually get Alzheimer's?
@AgencyFAPESP gets props for at least putting "rats" in their headline, but they go way out of bounds when claiming the research "could result in an important advance in the treatment of depression."
If you have any doubt about this, you MUST read about the "FORCED SWIM TEST" the mice were subjected to in this study and ask yourself if this is really a good model for extrapolating the effects of a drug on human beings with depression. 
And finally, the @AmerChemSociety says "Strawberries could help reduce harmful inflammation in the colon." It takes 6 paragraphs for us to learn -- #inmice. And yet news outlets EAGERLY PICKED UP AND SPREAD the misleading idea that this applies directly to humans.
TAKEAWAYS from @garyschwitzer:
1. PUT “MICE” IN THE HEADLINES and you’d go a long way toward establishing a more responsible framing for the research.
1. PUT “MICE” IN THE HEADLINES and you’d go a long way toward establishing a more responsible framing for the research.
2. Ensure that you clarify HOW BIG MAY BE THE LEAP from animal studies to human implications.
3. This is why we have reviewed more than 550 health care PR news releases. Because many – indeed, most that we’ve seen – ABDICATE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to educate in favor of hyping results.
4. Of course, the front office is worried that putting “mice” or caveats in the headlines WON'T RESULT IN A HIGH CLICK RATE. Or it won’t generate new research funding. Or it won’t help lure new superstar scientists.
5. Which means that OTHER INTERESTS, BESIDES READERS' INTERESTS, explain why we get what we get every day.
