Use recent gel nail:cancer headlines to discuss research design

 Many of my students love a good manicure.  Sometimes, they come in with full-on talons.  The youth love manicures. 

As such, the recent viral headlines about gel nail polish lamps and cancer matter to them. 

#scicomm

But what did the original research really study?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35876-8#Sec12

(CHECK OUT THIS GREAT RM IMAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!)

This short NPR story by Rachel Treisman is a great summary. The NPR audio story is accompanied by a written report. In that report, Treisman succinctly summarizes the methodology:

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151332361/gel-nails-cancer-manicure-safe

1. Let's talk about science communication.

The NPR story is accurate science reporting. However, most of the headlines don't mention that a) some of the evidence came from mice cells, and they measured cell mutations but not cancer. 

2. Let's talk about factorial ANOVA

The researchers used a 3 (cell types: human 1, human 2, and mouse cells) x 2 (exposure condition: acute vs chronic), outcome variables (cell death, mitochondrial damage, DNA damage). 

3. Let's talk about repeated measure design.

In the acute condition, there were two sessions of 20 minutes, while in the chronic condition, the exposure occurred for days (again, see that fantastic image from the article!). 

4. Let's talk about DVs

Some of the headlines say cancer, but the actual outcome measures cell death, DNA damage, and mitochondria damage.

5. Let's talk about using lab research to establish a basic premise

This wasn't a huge epidemiological study looking at actual cancer rates. It was nice, tidy lab research that used disembodied cells to study the first thing that must be established in the gel nail lamp:cancer argument. And that is the immediate effects of UV light on cells.