Missing the environmental angle.
Four out of five of the nation’s top newspapers missed a key point about the state of the science when they covered an important new report that found cancer rates have declined for the first time.
November 26, 2008
Four out of five of the nation’s top newspapers missed a key point about the state of the science when they covered an important new report that found cancer rates have declined for the first time.
Specifically, only Rob Stein’s reporting in the Washington Post noted that while treatment has improved dramatically in recent years, there is a tremendous knowledge gap within the scientific and medical community about the underlying causes of cancer--in particular, the role environmental exposures play in initiating cancers. Indeed, Mr. Stein and the Post should be commended both for their inclusion of this important point, and for its placement high within the article/website, before one reaches the “click for next page” link.
The fact that the other news reports (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and Chicago Tribune) missed the environmental exposure angle is particularly disappointing because much of the explanation for the decrease in cancer incidences is attributed to decreases in smoking rates. If this trend continues, it would demonstrate how public policy can have a positive impact on cancer rates. As was reported by several of the news outlets, the most dramatic declines in cancer rates occurred in states with the most aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, particularly when compared to states where anti-smoking efforts are less of a statewide priority. Perhaps these efforts can be used as a model for policymakers as scientists begin to have a broader understanding of the environmental and genetic causes of diseases.
The annual trend of higher total cancer rates has come to a halt. But non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, kidney cancer and melanoma continued to rise last year. Exposures to contaminants in our environment have been associated with all of these diseases. Nevertheless, an association between a contaminant and a particular cancer does not mean the contaminant caused that cancer. Thus, the important questions that need to be asked are why do some people get cancer and others do not? What environmental exposures are most likely to put someone at risk? Which prevention strategies are most effective at cutting one’s risk? Only when we develop answers to these questions, can we insure that this year’s decrease in cancer incidence is the start of a trend, rather than a slight blip. Only by asking these questions regularly, can we start to find their answers. Kudos to the Post for asking the question.
