Misleading titles - real science, false impression

Science breakthroughs are exciting. They change our lives, they hold the promise for a better world.
Sometimes the explanation is straight forward, and can be easily understood by most people, even if they don't have any related background.

But sometimes, in the process of trying to convey breakthrough research to the ordinary person, editors (or bloggers, or twitters, or facebookers or .....) pick up on a concept they know about (even partially) and use that as the "catch", the title that will make people want to read the article/watch the video.

The problem?

Creating a false notion in people's perception. Misleading them to think something which is (scientifically speaking) is not true.

Today's example (and there are examples like this one popping out too often than one would like to admit):

"Doctors Take A Long Shot And Inject HIV Into Dying Girl. The Reason Why Will Amaze You."

But the real science is more subtle than that, as carefully outlined by Cancer Research UK:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/06/25/no-doctors-did-not-inject-hiv-into-a-dying-girl-to-treat-her-cancer/

Their most important message to the public is:
"To be absolutely clear, the doctors in the video did NOT inject HIV – nor a “deadly disease” – into a child."

The reason for the misleading title is pinned to the fact that:
"According to the video ... the virus used in these experiments was originally derived from HIV, ... However, the virus has undergone significant genetic tinkering, meaning that it is no longer harmful ... And it’s arguable whether it should even be referred to as HIV at all, given how much it has been altered."

What really happened was that the HIV was used to alter the patient's own immune cells, to allow them to "infect" the rest of the body's immune cells with a new genetic trait (the one that kills the cancer cells).


Perhaps one can be forgiving, saying "but you admit that they used HIV, so what's all the fuss?"
The problem is that with such a title, people get the impression that HIV was the cure, where is fact, it was simply a "tool" to reprogram the body's immune cells.

Would you believe me if I told you I painted my house with Acetone? you would think this is odd.
But if I used Acetone as a paint thinner, and painted my house with the "modified" paint, you would naturally say that claiming I painted my house with Acetone is misleading. Yes, Acetone was part of the paint, but saying I painted with Acetone gives you the wrong impression.
Exactly like the story of the HIV and cancer cure. 

Words are powerful.
Use them wisely.

Again! do it again!

Have you ever had an event that made you wonder about an idea which up to that point was so obvious you never stopped to think about its true meaning?

Well, it happened to me today.

I attended a great talk by Dr. Effie Sauer, who teaches at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus. She was telling us how they provide their undergraduate chemistry students with "real scientific research" experience. Which brings up the question (which were eloquently presented today as part of the talk) , what are the objectives of such a course? What are students suppose to learn from such a course?
The answer (of which I'm only bringing up only a small portion, with my apologies to Dr. Sauer) is :

In real science, things don't always work. In fact, they usually don't work the first time around (and mostly not even the second time around).

The problem with undergraduate chemistry teaching in universities (and correct me if your university is an exception) is that students are usually given experiments which work. They've been tested for years all across the globe, and everyone knows they work, which is great, since the students get a sense of accomplishment (if it works), and everyone is happy.
BUT....
Real science doesn't work like that. Actual research is about not knowing what you get, and more often than not, you don't even know why it didn't work.

And then it hit me - why do we call it "Re - Search" ?

Looking up the etymological background, I've found that the "Re" implies repetition, performing a tack intensively. The "Search" is the seeking part.

So what do we get ? Seeking! Again! and Again! and Again!

 Why do we do it again? because it didn't work!!!!


And to think that I've been doing research for so many years, and not thinking about this obvious use of the term "Research"!

(I should point out that when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Chemistry, during the organic labs, some reactions did actually fail. At that we would confront our instructor and say "hey, this doesn't work!" as which we were told "yeh, it never did". My fellow students and I felt deceived. They knew it didn't work and made us do all this work for nothing. Peh. - shows you how little appreciation I had for failure at that stage)