P.T. Barnum, the American showman and circus master, is often credited with saying, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” However, the veracity of this attribution is debatable. This anecdote serves as a reminder of the importance of scrutinizing claims, especially when they carry significant implications, such as those found in the recent MAHA Report on children’s health.
The report, intended to influence health policy affecting millions, has come under fire for its questionable citations. Two academics, Steven Woloshin and Richard L. Kravitz, found their work misrepresented in the document, raising concerns about the report’s credibility and the integrity of its findings.
Missteps in Citing Academic Work
Both Woloshin and Kravitz received inquiries from journalists regarding the citations of their work in the MAHA report. Kravitz discovered that a citation supposedly supporting a claim about direct-to-consumer television advertisements was attributed to a non-existent paper. The citation, intended to be from The Lancet, was not only incorrect but also credited to another author.
Similarly, Woloshin’s work was misrepresented. His article, cited in the report, was published in a different journal and on an unrelated topic. This pattern of errors is not isolated, as the nonprofit outlet NOTUS identified several other inaccuracies, including references to non-existent studies and misapplied research findings.
Implications for Scientific Credibility
The errors in the MAHA report have significant implications. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to downplay these issues as minor formatting errors. However, experts argue that such mistakes undermine the report’s reliability and, by extension, public trust in government publications.
Scientific progress relies on accurate and credible research. As Woloshin and Kravitz note, the past century’s advancements have been built on a foundation of respect for prior work and rigorous fact-checking. The current situation highlights the ongoing challenges to scientific integrity, including predatory journals and poor peer review processes.
Lessons Learned and Moving Forward
The MAHA report’s shortcomings underscore the need for diligence in research and citation practices. When asked for guidance, an AI suggested three principles for citing research: prioritize reputable journals, reference original studies, and ensure literature directly applies to the topic at hand.
These guidelines are crucial for maintaining the integrity of scientific reports. As the government revises the MAHA report, the hope is that these principles will be more rigorously applied to prevent future errors.
Steven Woloshin and Richard L. Kravitz, both seasoned academics, emphasize the importance of getting the facts right. Their experiences serve as a cautionary tale for researchers and policymakers alike, reminding us that in the realm of public health, accuracy is paramount.
As the conversation around the MAHA report continues, the focus remains on ensuring that future reports uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity, thereby fostering public trust and informed decision-making.
