Fish Are Taking Your Birth Control
News Article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fish-are-taking-your-birth-control
Scientific Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09303
For this blog post, my initial goal was to find an outright bad news article, or in other words, one that relayed information from a legitimate scientific article in an irresponsible and ridiculous way. I had heard previously of studies showing that pharmaceuticals were making their way from our medicine cabinets into wastewater, and so I wanted to further investigate this topic. Within our current political climate, and among commentators like Alex Jones asserting that “chemicals are turning the frogs gay,” I figured that an article focusing on hormonal disruptions in aquatic ecosystems would sufficiently fulfill my objective. I found my target in the article “Fish Are Taking Your Birth Control” written by Kent Sepkowitz of The Daily Beast, based on a study of transgenerational impacts on fish populations caused by estrogenic compounds conducted by the U.S Geological Survey.
The scientific article “Transgenerational effects from early developmental exposures to bisphenol A or 17a-ethinylestradiol in medaka, Oryzias latipes” examines how certain estrogenic compounds impact fish reproduction and survival after multiple generations. The estrogenic compounds investigated were 17a-ethinylestradiol (EE2), a common ingredient in oral contraceptives, and Bisphenol A (BPA) which is used to manufacture resins and polycarbonate plastics. These chemicals accumulate in water reservoirs “Specifically, BPA occurs in the ng/L range in surface waters and up to the mg/L range in groundwater…The concentration of EE2 in surface and ground water has been found in the high pg/L to low ng/L range.” In order to asses how these two chemicals impact fish populations, Bhandari et al. exposed fertilized medaka fish eggs to BPA or EE2 in 100 µg/L and 0.05 µg/L concentrations 8 hours after fertilization. They also had a control group of fish, which were not exposed to any chemicals. These exposed and unexposed fish are known as F0. All of this generation of fish survived and hatched, as did the F1 generation. Though the F2 generation had typical survival rates, the rate of fertilization of these eggs was lower than previous generations and the control group. The survival and reproduction rate continued to decrease in F3 and F4. This data is summarized in the figure below. In the discussion of this paper, the authors elaborate on how their results can be applied to aquatic environments, and how these transgenerational effects can hurt fish and other species populations. The authors also make a point to mention that the exact mechanism for these impacts are still unknown.
The sub-heading for the Daily Beast article reads “According to a report from the U.S. Geological Survey, birth control is causing reduced fertility and gender switching in fish.” The article then goes on to introduce the topic at hand by discussing a couple of instances of viruses and harmful compounds found in sewers and wastewater, namely the polio virus and triclosan, a hormone-disrupting compound which was commonly used in soap. Included in this introduction is an elaborate reference to the sewers in Les Miserables, which continues throughout the remainder of the article. The article then briefly discusses the actual results of the study at hand, explaining that the grandchildren of exposed fish had an approximate 30% reduction in fertilization rates. No mention was made of fish survival rates. The article then moves on to discuss the occurrence of intersex fish, and appears to directly link this phenomenon with the results of the scientific article. The news article uses deliberately vague terms throughout this discussion, including “hormone disruption,” and “glomming.” To conclude the paper, the author discusses how other medications such as cholesterol-lowering and antidepressant pills, may be making their way into our drinking water. Overall, I believe this news article did a terrible job of accurately and honestly reporting the data from the paper at hand.
The first issue I have with the news article was that the scientific article was not directly linked anywhere in it. In addition to that, other hyperlinks in the article were inactive or inaccurate. Another issue I have with the article is how it lumps in the topic of transgenerational fish reproduction rates with other, much more eye-catching and outrageous topics, like the active polio viruses found in Israeli sewers, as well as the occurrence of other pharmaceuticals in drinking water. This, in addition to exaggerative language, like “spine-tingling,” and “gender-bending.” only serves to sensationalize the topic and hyperbolize how severe the issue of fish reproduction is. The greatest issue I have with the news article, though, is how it links the reduced fertilization rates discussed in the paper with the phenomenon of intersex fish. Specifically in the subheading of the article, the author claims that the U.S Geological Survey report found gender switching in fish. Nowhere in the scientific article do the authors indicate that they found sex-switching in fish to be a statistically significant result of the hormone exposure the F0 generations experienced. Additionally, the news article author seems to imply that these reproductive disruptions in the fish populations could possibly be relevant to human populations as well.
Overall I would give this news article a solid 1/10. The sensationalization and dramatization of the topic undermines the actual data collected by the scientists. Although the single statistic that the article quotes is technically an accurate figure, it does not accurately reflect the whole of the data. The news article neglects to explain the methods and greater results of the study, leaving the reader with a skewed perception of transgenerational reproductive impacts in aquatic environments. Although the existence of intersex fish is definitely valid and something to be investigated, this was not a focus of the scientific paper, and yet it was made to be a significant aspect of the news article. Although the Daily Beast article was certainly entertaining, it only served to generate "clicks" through outlandish buzzwords and fearmongering.
🐠🎣🐟
It's always somewhat humorous to find articles like these where they skew the data of a study and make it look like the study is trying to accomplish something else. In this case, would you say the author of the news article is taking the scientific article out of context or just picking and choosing data from the article that benefit their claim? I know for my blog post the news article was picking and choosing data from the scientific article to support its claims, but it wasn't taking this data out of context.
ReplyDeleteI think that the author most likely is picking and choosing data that benefits their claim. By quoting the statistic that deals with decreased egg fertilization, the author is able to link fertility with hormones, and with that, transition into more bizarre, outlandish topics like gender-bending fish. Rather than taking the data out of its original context, they are recontextualizing it to push their own argument.
DeleteArticles like these really make you wonder about the integrity of some authors, that they would knowingly (I assume) distort scientific results into clickbait. It's a shame that there isn't some sort of peer-review equivalent in media that would give readers more trust in news info and would prevent mis/disinformation like this article from being spread. I could see this getting tough with pieces that incorporate authors' opinions, but creating a clearer divide between peer-reviewed 'factual articles' and opinion pieces might also be beneficial to the public.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Kinda off-topic, but I see some similarities with the recent surge of AI generated/aided news reports. There needs to be some sort of indication that separates real, journalistic efforts with integrity from those that just wish to generate clicks.
DeleteI totally agree about this article - however it does make for a fun read when only reading to laugh about it. The part of the article that bothers me most is the inferences they make/allude to without any sort of basis to back it up. They use the real evidence for birth control getting into fish as "evidence" to go off topic and presume that it is possible for anti-depressants to be in water. So weird to me that authors do this. It makes me wonder about if they are truly that misinformed about these topics of if they have bad intent in sharing these ideas!
ReplyDeleteYeah this really bothered me a lot too. They didn't provide a single source for their claim that other medications were making their way into drinking water! To compare pharmaceuticals in wastewater to those in actual drinking water is very irresponsible. I forgot to mention it in my blog post, but I also think its important to say that the ethinyl estradiol can also make its way into wastewater from livestock operations, not just simply pharmaceuticals. I think the author is definitely aiming for clicks, and has no real interest in educating the public.
DeleteThis is an entertainingly bad article. It really brings into question all news articles, even the ones with good intentions, because there are no rules or regulations about using the authority of a real study as a guise to spread false information. This makes me trust news articles as a whole much less, and gives me more appreciation for the availability of scholarly articles/scientific papers online. What do you suppose the intentions of this author were? Simply to make the most click-baity, attention-grabbing article possible to maximize clicks?
ReplyDeleteI think the intentions of this author were just to generate as many clicks as possible with an eye-catching title and subheading. I agree that there should be some sort of indication on whether an article is trustworthy or not, similarly to what Zach said in his comment. I do see this becoming a slippery slope though, as who would be in charge of what constitutes a "trustworthy" article? In either case, it is always important to go back to the original source, in this case the scientific article, to validate these claims.
DeleteI definitely agree that the author of this article did a poor job transmitting the information from the scientific paper to the news article. It certainly begs the question of how many of the people who report news to the general public put much effort or time into making sure they use correct information and transmit all necessary information to their audiences. Thus, it is probably necessary to take news articles with a grain of salt, or at least start with that mindset, before trusting what the authors say. Luckily, for people in academia, or anyone interested in gaining a more complex or scientific understanding of things, we can find original content through scientific databases and other sources, as is where you found the original scientific paper outlining the study. So clearly, it would be more beneficial if the author would have included all sorts of data from the scientific paper, or just ones found to be most vital to understanding the research, and hence develop a piece that actually makes sense and describes the research in the paper at a more adequate level, at the very least. After all, the real research from the paper would help to develop a genuine claim that would truthfully inform the reader.
ReplyDeleteTotally. In order to be an informed consumer of media, we have to be critical of the content we interact with. Its easy to see how so much misinformation has been able to spread, especially in the last couple of years, even when we have verifiable data to prove/disprove certain claims. The News isn't necessarily somewhere we should be going to be entertained; first and foremost, it is for us to inform ourselves on the most important current events and issues impacting our lives.
DeleteI agree that this news piece takes on a more "opinion piece" feel, using what seems relevant and kicking the rest of the (honestly quite important) information to the curb; I would almost compare it to the piece Valentine wrote about, but must agree this piece is much less tactful (and much more for the clicks). I also find it interesting that the news article is titled "Fish Are Taking Your Birth Control" when I feel like there was heavy emphasis placed, at least in the scientific article, on the BPA side of things. Underneath all the click-bait-y filters, I can see a very reasonable point: the environmental impacts of production, as well as the use of common objects and medicinal substances are often not considered by the consumer. This point also seems to rest fairly centered in the scientific paper as well, exploring the things that the end consumer does not really know (or care) that much about. I see this conflict between the news article and the underlying reason for the paper to be very telling about this issue, and very symbolic of this process of consumers not really caring while the producers try to prevent the perversion of "good things."
ReplyDeleteI totally agree about the article that highlights the potential long-term consequences of environmental exposure to substances like BPA and EE2, which are commonly found in water sources. The study's observation of reduced fertilization rates over generations emphasizes the importance of understanding how human activities can affect aquatic ecosystems and the wildlife within them. One question that arises from the news article's misinterpretation of the scientific study is, how can we improve science communication and journalism to ensure accurate and responsible reporting of scientific research? Misleading headlines and sensationalism can lead to public misunderstanding of important scientific findings, and it's crucial to address this issue to promote informed decision-making and policy development.
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting that the actual research article decided to report the typical concentrations reported for both BPA and EE2 in water and then used a higher concentration when exposing fish eggs. Considering toxicity and negative health effects are most definitely concentration dependent, I think a better approach to the study would be to expose fish eggs of different groups to a range in concentrations of the estrogen mimicking substances, that is within the amount actually found in water. Potentially going slightly higher to try and note when negative effects are noticed would also be useful, however, I don't see the usefulness in jumping straight to exposure at a concentration several orders of magnitude higher. I also agree that the news article seems to be roughly citing this research article to match their own story line by linking intersex fish to the results of the study.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the article was hilariously bad. On a more serious note, it does make claims that the actual article never made, like BPA and EE2 making fish become intersex. (This is not surprising given the Daily Beast is essentially a tabloid, and a majority of tabloids engage in some exaggeration of the truth to try and get people to read them.) This becomes a real issue when the general public will probably not try to find the actual scientific article because policies might be made based on a lie.
ReplyDeleteThe article also compares this situation with that of Triclosan, an ingredient that used to be added to soap to make it antibacterial. It was found to decrease thyroid hormones but no one knows if it will result in other long-term health concerns. The Daily Beast appears to be saying the FDA knows the truth about it but is being wishy-washy, making people lose faith with the government in dealing with the current situation.
All in all, this article was very misleading and I think it's quite bad that a tabloid is twisting a scientific article to suit its own agenda.
Wow this one really takes the cake for the worst article this semester. Not only does it significantly short in presenting the study's findings but it also sensationalizing the study's outcomes. The daily mail article uses exaggerated language and tangentially linking unrelated topics to try and make a point but it just comes across basis and unreliable. The article not only failed to accurately reference the original scientific research but also propagated misleading information to its readers. As Nick mentioned before in the comments, researchers who are reading this article will be able to find secondary sources. However, the sad thing is that this is often not the target audiences for the Daily Mail. Many of the readers will take whatever the authors says and run with it.
ReplyDeleteHey Giana, sorry for the late reply. I just wanted to say what an interesting title for the news article it definitely caught my attention however the news article falls off from there. I definitely agree that the news article does a poor and humorous job of conveying quite literally everything from the scientific article. I truly commend you for finding an article like this bad in every single aspect not only do they grossly underrepresent the findings found in the main scientific article but they also go as far as blatantly misleading their reader, one of the biggest "no-no's" when presenting scientific information. Do you thinks this poorly written article is the fault of the author or the fault of the Daily mail as a whole?
ReplyDelete