"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.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe