The real story behind the viral posts about Beethoven and cancer cells.
A viral claim that Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony kills cancer cells has amassed over 87,000 reactions on social media since December. And, other publications started jumping on the bandwagon by sharing the same news on their own pages.
If that sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is. The Brazilian scientist behind the original 2011 research says her findings were twisted.
Dr. Márcia Alves Marques Capella‘s study never claimed the symphony could destroy 20% of cancer cells, as stated in a widely shared Facebook post.
Setting the online record straight, however, is an uphill battle.
How the Story Gained Traction
It all began with a 2011 article in O Globo, a Brazilian newspaper. The report claimed that when breast cancer cells were exposed to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 for 30 minutes, one in five died.
From there, the story caught the eye of Improbable Research, a website that features unusual scientific studies. That exposure helped the claim spread globally, and it has continued circulating ever since.
In reality, Dr. Capella and her team at the Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho did study how music affects cancer cells. But the study was not the way social media suggests.
Their experiments, published in 2013 and 2016, exposed two breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) to three pieces including:
Cells were placed in an incubator and subjected to the music at 70-100 dB for 30 minutes using a coaxial speaker. And, controls included complete silence and a speaker turned on with no sound.
The results? Beethoven’s and Ligeti’s compositions led to a statistically significant increase in cell death and changes in cell morphology, while Mozart’s music had little effect.
That sounds promising, right? But, the researchers never quantified how many cells died. Meaning, the “20%” figure was completely fabricated.
Most importantly, the study only examined cells in petri dishes, not living organisms.
“The methods we used did not allow us to quantify cellular death,” Dr. Capella told Snopes.
She made it clear that they only tested cells in dishes, adding that results “could not be extended to human beings.”
Dr. Capella tried to correct the misinformation in a CNN Radio interview, but by then, the story had taken on a life of its own on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram.
A post from December 2024 alone currently has more than 87,000 reactions and 34,000 shares.
What Other Studies Say
Scientists have been trying to understand how music affects cells for a long time, but the results remain mixed.
For example, a 2022 systematic review of multiple studies found that music can impact cell proliferation, differentiation, and viability. But, the effects vary depending on cell type, musical genre, and methodology.
Some studies suggest music can alter gene expression and protein activity, potentially influencing cellular stress, repair, and growth. However, findings are inconsistent, and there’s no clear pattern across different experiments.
One major challenge? Lack of standardization. Studies have used different frequencies, intensities, and durations, making it difficult to compare results.
It’s unclear whether the effects are due to music as a whole or specific acoustic properties like rhythm or pitch. And, without controlled experiments that eliminate these variables, drawing firm conclusions remains impossible.
All in all, there’s just not enough research available for any firm conclusions – whatever social media might have you believe.
Why Misinformation Travels Faster Than the Truth
The spread of this twisted science story follows a common pattern on social media.
Research from MIT shows that false news travels up to 10 times faster than true stories online.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains why: “Outrage is the key to virality” on social media platforms.
While that’s certainly true, the same can be said for stories that give people hope. This problem keeps growing. About 54% of Americans now get some of their news from social media. On these platforms, shocking claims often get more attention than careful scientific findings.
Dr. Capella’s story shows exactly how hard it can be to correct false information once it starts circulating online.
In an ideal world, falsehoods wouldn’t just be debunked quickly. We would also be able to ensure that accurate science reaches people with the same speed and impact.
For now, it’s up to each of us to double- and triple-check information before we share it with others.
It’s literally the least we could do.