Dissemination of Erroneous Research Findings and Subsequent Retraction in High-Circulation Newspapers: A Case Study of Alleged MDMA-Induced Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates

Abstract

ABSTRACT Ensuring the public is informed of retractions has proven difficult for the scientific community. While it is possible that newspapers focus differential attention on publication of scientific articles and their subsequent retractions, this topic has received minimal attention from researchers. To learn more, we analyzed newspaper coverage of the high-profile 2002 article Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (“ecstasy”) and its retraction in a case study. We searched the 50 largest American newspapers with available online archives for stories about the article’s publication and retraction. Of the 50 newspapers, 26 (52%) covered the article’s publication and 20 (40%) its retraction. Six of the 50 newspapers (12%) published stories on the article’s retraction without covering its initial publication. Of the 26 newspapers covering the article’s publication, only 14 (54%) covered its retraction. Stories about the retraction were balanced, but shorter than those on the article’s publication and often lacking in context and detail. While the decrease in coverage of the article’s retraction was moderate among the entire sample, the much lower retraction coverage in newspapers that had already covered the article’s publication is concerning and emphasizes the need for increased media coverage of retractions.