In my role as Communications Specialist at CCRM, I often come across examples of science communication that would be considered best practice in the field.
However, after finishing the best-selling book Bad Blood (Carreyrou, 2018), I was reminded that not all science communication is created equal.
The Theranos Tale
Bad Blood is a thorough overview of the rise and fall of a company called Theranos. Founded in 2003, Theranos was a Silicon Valley-based start-up that combined health and technology. It claimed to have created machines that could perform more than 200 blood tests and were small enough to sit on a shelf in a pharmacy or doctor’s office.
Theranos reported that its proprietary machines could complete blood tests with only five drops of blood gleaned from a small, nearly pain-free finger stick, rather than many vials of blood drawn from a vein that were required for laboratory tests. It said that the results could be revealed in minutes instead of the days that traditional test results took. A Theranos test was cheaper than a laboratory test as well.
American patients had access to Theranos’ blood tests starting in 2013. The company’s valuation exploded into multi-billion dollar territory.
Throughout Theranos’ lifespan, the health care, science and investment communities were intrigued with the company, its products and its founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes. Although some of these outsiders raised red flags about the tests and machines over the years, both before and after patients had access to them, their concerns were always explained away or disregarded by the company’s leadership.
In reality, Theranos’ blood tests weren’t what they were made out to be. Theranos’ machines could not effectively perform tests and incorrect results were rampant. This had serious and dangerous repercussions for patients who used test results to inform diagnoses and treatment decisions.
Despite this, Ms. Holmes frequently made herself available for interviews with high-profile journalists to generate awareness and drive demand. Glamourous profiles about Ms. Holmes, and positive stories about the company and its products, were published in top-tier publications like the Wall Street Journal, Fortune and The New Yorker.
It wasn’t until investigative journalist John Carreyrou wrote an eye-opening story for the Wall Street Journal that the muddy waters around Theranos began to clear. Outsiders then learned the truth about the company and its ill-performing products.
Uncovering the facts
As a communications professional, I was shocked to learn how Theranos manipulated media interviews and deceived journalists so that favourable stories would be published. It’s an extreme example of how false information can infiltrate the public domain.
Fake science news might make its way into the science communications we consume on an everyday basis for other reasons too. Sometimes a researcher deliberately misinterprets the results of a study, a journalist (or headline editor) inflates the importance of a finding, or a source intentionally misrepresents the science or even lies about it.
How can you identify fake news in science communication?
Before you believe what you read, hear or see, take the C.R.A.A.P. test. The C.R.A.A.P. test is often used to evaluate the value of online sources when doing research. You can also use it to think critically about and question a science-related story in the media, a presentation, on social media, or anywhere else science communication appears.
When assessing science communication for fake news, consider the story’s:
- Currency
- When was it written, published or presented?
- When was it updated (if applicable)?
- Do links in an online article still work?
- Reliability
- Where did the journalist/author get the information?
- Are there links or citations with credible sources?
- Can the facts or information in the story be verified via other sources?
- Authority (of the journalist/author)
- Has the journalist/author covered this topic in the past?
- Does the journalist/author have training or education in science or another relevant area?
- Authority (of the publication)
- Is the publication reliable and truthful?
- Purpose
- What is the purpose of the piece?
- Is more than one viewpoint included?
- Is the tone of the piece objective/neutral?
- Is someone trying to sell something?
If you want to learn more about the Theranos saga before you read Bad Blood (or listen to the audiobook version, like I did), a 2019 HBO documentary called The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley also covers it. Watch the trailer below.
Laine Bodnar
Latest posts by Laine Bodnar (see all)
- Right Turn: Ethics in science communication - April 8, 2025
- Regulatory affairs careers: What scientists need to know - March 18, 2025
- How to kickstart scicomm careers beyond academia - October 31, 2024
Comments