Did the ALS 'Ice Bucket Challenge' really help research? Scientists say yes

Researchers, who published a groundbreaking new study on ALS, credit part of their success to funds from the Ice Bucket Challenge.

|
Charles Krupa/AP Photo/File
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, right center, and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, third from left, participate in the Ice Bucket Challenge with its inspiration Pete Frates, seated in center, to raise money for ALS research, Monday, Aug. 10, 2015, at the Statehouse in Boston. Scientists studying ALS have said the challenge has provided critical funds that have led to breakthroughs in research.

For a few weeks last summer, the “Ice Bucket Challenge” was a full-on viral phenomenon, driving celebrities and everyday folks to post videos of themselves getting doused in ice water and raising millions of dollars to spread awareness of ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

Now the campaign appears to be paying off, highlighting the idea that social media advocacy – which has been criticized as low-investment activism, or “slacktivism,” if not outright ineffective – may, in some cases, provide a path to real results.

A new study published last week in the journal Science that sheds new light on the illness was one of many funded by the $200 million raised through the Ice Bucket Challenge, the Washington Post reported. The team behind the research, led by Johns Hopkins professor Philip Wong, had been studying ALS for a decade, but the funds the challenge brought to the field propelled them to pursue riskier, and potentially more rewarding, experiments.

"The money came at a critical time when we needed it,” Dr. Wong told the Post. "Without it, we wouldn't have been able to come out with the studies as quickly as we did.”

As Internet use rises in the US – the Pew Research Center reports that more than 85 percent of American adults now use the Internet and 24 percent of teens are online “almost constantly” – the use of social media as a tool for advocacy, awareness, and activism has grown, as well.

"One of the great things about social media is it creates more of a conversation ... as opposed to the [strategy of] one-way, 'Watch our PSAs' or 'Read our mailers,' " Jonathan Obar, an assistant professor of communications studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, told USA Today. "It's a conversation that can lead to more engagement."

Indeed, that ability to reach out and connect with audiences on a personal level has spawned a multitude of online campaigns-for-a-cause that range from #BringBackOurGirls to #JeSuisCharlie to #ICantBreathe.

The problem, however, is that while many of these campaigns develop a kind of brand recognition, they rarely push people to action.

Critics of “Bring Back Our Girls,” for instance – which began in April 2014 as a call to release more than 200 young girls kidnapped from a Nigerian village by the extremist group Boko Haram – said the “hashtag represents the positive aspect of spreading awareness, but unfortunately fails to achieve peace or action in the area,” The Christian Science Monitor reported a year after the campaign took off. “Women are still being abducted by Boko Haram.”

The Ice Bucket Challenge, though it saw tangible results for the ALS Association in the form of hard cash, received similar criticism. Slate’s Will Oremus noted that the charity portion of the challenge remained an afterthought, something to be done as an alternative to being drenched in icy water.

As for “raising awareness,” few of the videos I’ve seen contain any substantive information about the disease, why the money is needed, or how it will be used. More than anything else, the ice bucket videos feel like an exercise in raising awareness of one’s own zaniness, altruism, and/or attractiveness in a wet T-shirt.

Still, researchers who have received funding from the challenge have said that the effort was meaningful. In an “Ask Me Anything” thread on Reddit, Jonathan Ling, another scientist at Johns Hopkins, tried to address comments that the endeavor was a waste.

With the amount of money that the ice bucket challenge raised, I feel that there’s a lot of hope and optimism now for real, meaningful therapies. After all, the best medicines come from a full understanding of a disease and without the financial stability to do high risk, high reward research, none of this would be possible!

One campaign that did see success – both in awareness and action – is #GivingTuesday, founded by social marketing whiz Henry Timms in partnership with the United Nations Foundation. The movement encourages individuals, companies, and communities to give back on Dec. 1, and since it started in 2012, has engaged more than 30,000 organizations worldwide.

Mr. Timms’s advice to other groups who want to use social media for advocacy is to develop a strategy that encourages people to make the cause their own.

“The challenge ahead, for any organization trying to create movements at scale, is not simply to master social media, but to learn to shape and support social communities,” he wrote for the Harvard Business Review. “This will require not just new toolkits, but new mindsets.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Did the ALS 'Ice Bucket Challenge' really help research? Scientists say yes
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0819/Did-the-ALS-Ice-Bucket-Challenge-really-help-research-Scientists-say-yes
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe