What Not to Do: Bad Medical Writing Habits

Kristine Burneko, NP
Jan 7
3 min read

Recently, a 2024 article bubbled up on Bluesky from the New York Times titled “This Drinking Habit Is More Dangerous Than Bingeing,” subheaded “And it’s on the rise among middle-aged drinkers.” I’m hoping to tease out a few components of the piece to illuminate how well it demonstrates what NOT to do in scientific writing.

#1: Old or Inappropriate Evidence

The article was published on Nov. 26, 2024, two days before Thanksgiving. It’s timely and the headline is attention-grabbing, surely appealing to readers curious about their upcoming indulgences. However, while several of the studies cited are high-quality and include data from the 5 years previous to the article, much of the research referred to in the piece is older: 1993, 2006, 2010, 2018. In addition, there is at least one area where the author refers to “studies” supporting a fact where in fact there is only one study cited. Where are the rest?

#2: Sensationalist Tone

This is a very difficult needle for most science writers to thread. Publications seek articles that will be appealing, and authors try to write pieces that are interesting. Catchy headlines, timely topics, and accessible language are crucial for public-facing material. Occasionally, however, we veer into wording that alarms the reader and a framing of the subject matter that exaggerates danger.

Here, the subhead falls into that trap: “And it’s on the rise among middle-aged drinkers.” This will certainly increase engagement among middle-aged readers heading into the alcoholic festivities of the holiday. However, closer reading reveals that rates are also decreasing in teenagers and reaching “historic lows” in young adults. Notably, these are not the target demographic for the New York Times.

#3: Incautious Phrasing

“Experts say” and “studies have found.” The author does provide names, credentials, and expertise of several sources mentioned in the article which is crucial for accuracy in science and medical writing. However, the dreaded phrase “Experts say…” is also included. This is a very common journalistic pitfall that leaves writing open to all manner of editorializing, poor logic, and illegitimate conclusions. Which experts?

For example, I have more than 12 letters after my name, advanced education and extensive clinical experience treating people suffering from alcohol use disorders. I could feasibly be referred to as an “expert.” I could also share my theories about how time is not linear, the word “crazy” is a slur, or dogs are better companions than humans. Does my “expert” status apply to these theories? When I write about something outside my wheelhouse, can I use “experts say” facts to cover a lack of supporting evidence?

Another common science/medical writing trap is the phrase “studies have found,” or “studies have shown that….” This is a common tactic used by quacks and hucksters to market snake oil. In this article, the phrase is used to refer to one study. Where are the rest? If it were a meta-analysis or systematic review, the phrase would possibly be valid. If it’s one study, better to avoid this hackneyed phrasing.

#4: Self-Evident Conclusions

After browsing this article and noting all the scientific support mentioned, an average reader is impressed, feels informed, and is likely concerned about this new phenomenon of “high-intensity drinking.” However, ten or fifteen minutes after reading it, as they process the material and putter into the kitchen to begin spatchcocking their turkey, they will probably have a moment of realization: “Wait. So… the more you drink in a given period of time, the more dangerous it is. Um, okay. Hmm."

#5: Framing and Fact Mismatch

The title, as it is framed, leads us to believe that there is some new alcoholic phenomenon, fundamentally different from previous understanding - something to worry about. However, the core fact of the article is something the reader already knew from the beginning: 10 drinks are more dangerous than 4 within an hour. This is a sort of window-dressing, a way to frame the unremarkable with pizazz and credibility.

Final Thoughts

The article is a good one! The author is clearly familiar with the landscape and conventions of scientific research. She’s writing about the perennial, life-wrecking, and all-too-common phenomenon of pathological alcohol consumption - much of which will very likely occur in the days following publication. She’s raising awareness of a tragically prevalent social sickness which is important. However, there were a few educational angles of it that jumped out at me, and I think they are useful reminders to those of us in the scientific and medical writing industry.