New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

"Angelina Jolie Effect" Leaves Public With Inaccurate Knowledge of Breast Cancer Risk

A survey of 2500 Americans finds that despite many knowing about Jolie's preventive double mastectomy, most remain in the dark about breast cancer risk. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Last spring, Angelina Jolie revealed that she’d had a preventive double mastectomy. The announcement was intended to increase awareness. But a study finds that the public’s understanding of breast cancer remains shallow and often inaccurate.

Researchers surveyed more than 2,500 men and women and found that a whopping three out of four knew Jolie’s story. But less than 10 percent could correctly answer questions about the BRCA gene mutation that Jolie carries. The survey is in the journal Genetics in Medicine.

Women with mutations in either BRCA1 and BRCA2 do have a five-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with other women. But many did not know that these mutations are rare: far less than one percent of women have them.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Most people also still don’t know that the BRCA mutations are only linked to five to 10 percent of all breast cancer cases. And that in terms of absolute numbers, many more women with no family history of the disease get diagnosed with breast cancer than do those with a history of breast cancer in the family.

So kudos to Jolie for sharing her story. But doctors, media and patients all still need to do a better job with the whole breast cancer story.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe