Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences
Open Access
- 1 November 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Harvard Review of Psychiatry
- Vol. 28 (6), 395-403
- https://doi.org/10.1097/hrp.0000000000000276
Abstract
Most experts in the field of psychiatry recognize that neuroscience advances have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The main message delivered to laypeople, however, is that mental disorders are brain diseases cured by scientifically designed medications. Here we describe how this misleading message is generated. We summarize the academic studies describing how biomedical observations are often misrepresented in the scientific literature through various forms of data embellishment, publication biases favoring initial and positive studies, improper interpretations, and exaggerated conclusions. These misrepresentations also affect biological psychiatry and are spread through mass media documents. Exacerbated competition, hyperspecialization, and the need to obtain funding for research projects might drive scientists to misrepresent their findings. Moreover, journalists are unaware that initial studies, even when positive and promising, are inherently uncertain. Journalists preferentially cover them and almost never inform the public when those studies are disconfirmed by subsequent research. This explains why reductionist theories about mental health often persist in mass media even though the scientific claims that have been put forward to support them have long been contradicted. These misrepresentations affect the care of patients. Indeed, studies show that a neuro-essentialist conceptualization of mental disorders negatively affects several aspects of stigmatization, reduces the chances of patients’ healing, and overshadows psychotherapeutic and social approaches that have been found effective in alleviating mental suffering. Public information about mental health should avoid these reporting biases and give equal consideration to the biological, psychological, and social aspects of mental health.Keywords
This publication has 99 references indexed in Scilit:
- Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicatorsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013
- Prenatal Valproate Exposure and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Childhood AutismJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2013
- Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publicationsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012
- Mistreating Psychology in the Decades of the BrainPerspectives on Psychological Science, 2010
- Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal researchNature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010
- Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative reviewTrials, 2010
- Interaction Between the Serotonin Transporter Gene (5-HTTLPR), Stressful Life Events, and Risk of DepressionJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2009
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and PresentationPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical ResearchJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2005