Science over Sensationalism: How Clickbait Reporting Fuels Public Misperceptions about Vaping and Sets Public Health Back
In the rapidly evolving nicotine product landscape, rigorous science and evidence should be our north star. This is true for everyone, from the regulators analyzing products for authorization to the reporters who wield influence over our understanding of public health issues. Yet, recent media coverage of an unpublished Manchester Metropolitan University study belies this guiding principle and highlights a disturbing trend undermining public health and scientific integrity.
The Headline Machine vs. The Scientific Method
Last week, media outlets in the UK and US ran inflammatory headlines based on study author Dr. Maxime Boidin’s comments that nicotine vapers will be “horrified to know the truth” about the purported dangers of vaping compared to smoking combustible cigarettes. The claims are extraordinary and contradict years of rigorous, peer-reviewed research studies published in reputable scientific journals - and as such demand extraordinary evidence. But in place of that evidence, we have the hallmarks of sensationalist reporting.
Three red flags to the initial media reports:
It’s unpublished and incomplete. Dr. Boidin’s study is set to wrap up next month. Until then, claims made through reporting or any other means must be taken with a grain of salt. Scientific research is important for public understanding and should be made public following the rigorous peer reviews required by reputable scientific journals. Independent experts can validate study conclusions by thoroughly reviewing methodology, limitations, and results. It’s telling that Dr. Boidin shared his findings in a media venue designed to circumvent scientific discourse and avoid scrutiny by experts.
No access to study details. Complete methodology - especially for studies that run counter to a substantial body of peer-reviewed research - is requisite for peers, experts, and press to understand the merits of research and its claims. Without information on sample size, participant demographics, controls, study methods, and more, conclusions don’t represent much more than conjecture.
Tabloid fodder and sensationalism. Tabloids are in the business of peddling dramatic language and broad claims. Sharing research findings is crucial to public knowledge and decision-making, but information must be broadcast responsibly, based on reputable, peer-reviewed sources and shared via trusted outlets.
This reporting pattern bypasses the fundamental safeguards of scientific inquiry: peer review, methodological transparency, and appropriate contextualization within existing research.
Contradicting the Scientific Consensus
The purported findings of the study contradict years of research that followed the rigorous scientific process and informed the positions of major public health bodies. Scientific studies organized and reported out by the UK’s National Health Service, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in Health and Social Care (formerly Public Health England), and the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have built a robust body of evidence showing that while electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products are not risk free, studies show significantly lower risk to individuals versus combustible cigarettes.
A growing body of peer-reviewed evidence shows that ENDS products produce lower levels of toxicants and expose users to substantially fewer harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) relative to combustible cigarettes. Another major study using federal PATH data representative of the US population found exposure to harmful constituents in ENDS users was significantly lower than cigarette smokers, and approached levels measured in adults who never used tobacco products. These results reflect findings in controlled studies that showed ENDS use was associated with notably lower levels of the HPHCs typically associated with smoking-related diseases.
Research also shows the potential for ENDS to help smokers switch off cigarettes (Cochrane Review and Pulvers et. al via Brown University). In Britain alone, nearly 3 million people have switched off of cigarettes using a vape in the last 5 years.
Taken together, these rigorous studies and reports represent the gold standard of scientific research and evaluation, not preliminary findings shared through tabloid interviews.
The Real-World Impact of Clickbait Reporting
The negative effects of sensationalist health reporting can be profound. A recent UK study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research found that young adults’ understanding of the relative harms of vaping compared to smoking combustible cigarettes had a direct correlation to their likelihood of switching from combustibles to vapes.
According to study author Dr. Katherine East, “misperceptions of vaping harms continue to increase, and we have found in our study that this could deter young adults who smoke from switching to vaping (a less harmful behavior).” In England, 85% of adults who smoked inaccurately believed vaping was equally or more harmful than smoking, or did not have information on the relative harms.
There’s a lot that needs to change to make cigarettes obsolete. As I’ve outlined in previous posts, action must be taken to remove illegal products from the market, while providing compelling, high-quality, legal alternatives to help more smokers switch. Reporters and the scientists who engage with them have a role to play, too. Rigorous science and reporting on harm reduction may not drive as many clicks, but it can and does save lives.