The abstract of the published findings[1] says, "We show that despite the presence of antitumor T cells, immunotherapeutic antibodies are ineffective in a murin

The abstract of the published findings[1] says, "We show that despite the presence of antitumor T cells, immunotherapeutic antibodies are ineffective in a murine pancreatic cancer model recapitulating the human disease." And the word "murine" here means "mouse," as the journal article makes more clear than the press release kindly submitted here. The press release uses neither the word "murine" nor the word "mouse," and mentions "animal models" in passing just once, so when I first read the press release, I wasn't completely sure whether or not the findings were from a study of human patients. It will be important to check whether or not these findings translate into a safe and effective treatment for human patients after many more follow-up studies. As the authors note, pancreatic cancer is commonplace enough that an effective treatment for it would have a substantial good effect on human health. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[2] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[3] points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously. Press releases are usually misleading, promising more than the research result can be sure to deliver. The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[4] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story. [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20212.full http://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20212.full [2] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 [3] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coi... [4] http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html