Devices & Diagnostics, Health IT, Hospitals, MedCity Influencers, Pharma, Policy, Startups

New York Times: No, wearables are not the new cigarettes

After swift backlash to the ridiculously labeled article on the health concerns of wearable technology, the […]

After swift backlash to the ridiculously labeled article on the health concerns of wearable technology, the New York Times is at least addressing reader concerns in a column by Public Editor Margaret Sullivan. 

She notes that the original print headline  was not, in fact, the alarmist and absurd “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes,” which was later changed to “The Health Concerns of Wearable Tech.” The headline, along with the story’s lede that compared wearable tech to doctor-recommended cigarettes, was just the tip of the pseudo-science iceberg, though.

Howls of protest came from the Verge, Gawker, Popular Mechanics, Wired, Discover, Insolence and yours truly, touching on a number of perceived missteps — from the absurd comparison to smoking doctors, to a random collection of studies and drawing iffy conclusions on the risk of cellphones and cancer, to citing an alternative medicine specialist with a dubious history as a credible source.  The latter received some of the most vociferous criticisms.

The story’s author, Nick Bilton, defended the column that appeared in the Style Section, telling Sullivan:

 “The reality is, we still don’t know definitively the causes of cellphones and cancer, but I can tell you one thing, as a technology enthusiast myself, I approached this piece thinking all the research was bogus. But, as I noted in my column, after doing my own reporting on this topic, I’m no longer going to talk on my cellphone for long periods of time without a headset. And I will likely also keep my soon-to-be-born son away from cellphone use until his brain develops, as erring on the side of caution, until more research is done, seems to me to be the smart and intelligent approach to this issue.”

Few of the criticisms actually took issue with the subject matter (there are credible studies that address the matter and the concern isn’t totally out of the ordinary) but instead with how it was presented and who was considered an expert. Regarding the use of Dr. Joseph Mercola, who sells tanning beds and other homeopathic remedies on his website, Bilton had this to say:

“He is one view among a dozen studies, articles and reports I cite in the column.”

But Sullivan quickly, and rightly, adds in parenthesis: “However, I’ll note that Dr. Mercola is the only person directly quoted in the column. He said that describing Dr. Mercola as an alternative practitioner should have alerted readers.

Uh, OK, but why use him in the first place? No answer, really. Regarding the web headline, Sullivan said it “felt like clickbait, although it certainly reflected the top of the column.” Sure, but the comparison is completely bogus in the first place. Cigarettes do cause cancer. That is fact. Cellphones might be linked to cancer. That has been studied but not definitively proven. An editor should have objected to Bilton’s lede.

Styles Editor Stuart Emmrich told Sullivan that, in hindsight, he and Bilton should have run the piece by Time’s science and health desks for veracity. Bilton covers technology in the column Disruptions.

While the Times has not issued a correction or clarification, Sullivan did go on to say that the column was poorly vetted.  If one is to write on subject matter that they are not experts on, it would behoove them to seek help from those that do posses knowledge, at least internally, while proceeding with an abundance of caution.

“That didn’t happen here,” Sullivan noted.

“The column clearly needed much more vetting, at least some of which could have been done internally at The Times. The topic itself is a worthy one, and I don’t object to its appearing in Styles; placement isn’t the issue. But sophisticated evaluation of serious research surely is.”


Dan Verel

Dan Verel writes about how hospitals and health insurance companies are leveraging cutting-edge technologies to transform the industry -- from health IT to telemedicine to healthcare social media.

Previously, he was a reporter at the North Bay Business Journal, where he covered healthcare, insurance, HR and employment, law and hospitality and tourism. His byline’s also appeared in the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Bay Guardian. He is based in San Francisco.

Follow him on Twitter @DanVerel.

This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.

Shares0
Shares0