Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: Toward an ethic of trust in science journalism

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 198-205

  Geller, Gail ^a,b,c   Bernhardt, Barbara A ^d   Gardner, Mary ^b   Rodgers, Joann ^b   Holtzman, Neil A ^b,c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Genetics; Media; Qualitative research; Science journalism; Trust

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL GENETICS; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENCE;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICATION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; MALE; MASS MEDIA; SCIENCE; TRUST;

EID: 16444367009     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000156699.78856.23     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. Americans talk about science and medical news. The National Health Council Report, 1997.
2. Altman LK. Promises of miracles: News releases go where journals fear to tread. New York Times January 10, 1005:C3.
3. Dowie M. What's wrong with the New York Times's science reporting? The Nation July 6, 1998:13-19.
4. Koren G, Klein N. Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. JAMA 1991;266:1824-1826.
5. McComas KA, Simone LM. Media coverage of conflicts of interest in science. Sci Commun 2003;24:395-419.
6. Moynihan R. Making medical journalism healthier. Lancet 2003;361:2097-2098.
7. Pellechia MG. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U.S. newspapers. Public Underst Sci 1997;6:49-68.
8. Ransohoff DF, Ransohoff RM. Sensationalism in the media: When scientists and science writers maybe complicit collaborators. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4:185-188.
9. Shuchman M, Wilkes MS. Medical scientists and health news reporting: A case of miscommunication. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:976-982.
10. Singer E. A question of accuracy: How science writers and scientists report research on hazards. J Commun 1990;40:102-116.
11. Durant J, Hanson A. The role of the media. In: Kennet WK, editor. Parliaments and Screening: Ethical Issues Arising from Testing for HIV and Genetic Disease. Paris: John Libby Eurotext, 1995.
12. Nelkin D, Lindee S. The DNA mystique: The gene as cultural icon. New York: WH Freeman, 1995.
13. Franklin J. Scientific inquiry: The forces shaping science journalism. Currents 2002;28:24-26.
14. Highfield R. Selling science to the public. Science 2000;289:59.
15. Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet 1996;347:1600-1603.
16. Hargreaves N, Ferguson G. Who is misunderstanding whom? Bridging the gulf of understanding between the public, the media and science. Bristol, England: Economic & Social Research Council, 2000.
17. Johnson T. Shattuck lecture: medicine and the media. N Engl J Med 1998;339:87-92.
18. Peters HP. The interaction of science writers and scientific experts: Cooperation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society 1995;17:31-48.
19. Hartz J, Chappell R. Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's Future. Nashville: First Amendment Center, 1997.
20. Ficklen E. Science lessons: The good, the bad, and the ugly of communicating research. Currents 2002;28:16-23.
21. Owens SR. It's good to talk: Media training workshops are aiming to break down the barriers between scientists and science writers. EMBO Reports 2002;3:709-711.
22. Rensberger B. Why scientists should cooperate with science writers. Sci Eng Ethics 2000;6:549-552.
23. Stamm K, Williams JW, Hitchcock-Noel P, Rubin R. Helping science writers get it right: A physician's guide to improving health care reporting. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:138-145.
24. Valenti JM. Improving the scientist/science writer conversation. Sci Eng Ethics 2000;6:543-548.
25. Cooper CP, Yukimura D. Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:1887-1896.
26. Tambor ES, Bernhardt BA, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA, Geller G. Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genet Med 2002;4:31-36.
27. Condit CM, Achter PJ, Lauer I, Sefcovic E. The changing meanings of "mutation": A contextualized study of public discourse. Hum Mutat 2002;19:69-75.
28. Conrad P. Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult Med Psychiatry 2001;25:225-247.
29. Conrad P, Gabe J. Introduction: Sociological perspectives on the new genetics: An overview. Sociol Health Illn 1999;21:505-516.
30. Durant J, Hanson A., Bauer M. Public understanding of the new genetics. In: Marteau T, Richards M, editors. The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
31. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Holtzman NA. The media and public reaction to genetic research. JAMA 2002;287:773.
32. Geller G, Tambor ES, Bernhardt BA, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA. Houseofficers' reactions to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:2211-2220.
33. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. The new genetics: Professionals' discursive boundaries. Sociological Review 1997;45:279-303.
34. Mountcastle-Shah E, Tambor E, Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Karaliukas R, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA. Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries: Development of an instrument and initial findings. Sci Commun 2003;24:458-478.
35. Petersen A. Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Soc Sci Med 2001;52:1255-1268.
36. Stockdale A. Public understanding of genetics and Alzheimer's disease. Genet Test 1999;3:139-145. 36a. Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah, et al. The quality of media reports of discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Community Genetics 2005 (in press).
37. Stockdale A. Public understanding of genetics and Alzheimer's disease. Genet Test 1999;3:139-145. 36a. Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah, et al. The quality of media reports of discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Community Genetics 2005 (in press).
38. Garrett JM, Bird SW. Ethical issues in communicating science. Sci Eng Ethics 2000;6:435-442.
39. Bubela TM, Caulfield TA. Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. CMAJ 2004;170:1399-1407.
40. Lantz JC, Lanier WL. Observations from the Mayo Clinic National Conference on medicine and the media. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:1306-1311.
41. Cohen JJ. Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Acad Med 2001;76:209-214.
42. Boffey PM, Rodgers JE, Schneider SH. Interpreting uncertainty: A panel discussion. In: Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL, editors. Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
43. Holmes DR, Firth BG, James A, Winslow R, Hodgson PK, Gamble GL et al. Conflict of interest. Am Heart J 2004;147:228-237.
44. Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M. Trust: The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep 1996;26:25-29.
45. Yarborough M, Sharp RR. Restoring and preserving trust in biomedical research. Acad Med 2002;77:8-14.
46. DeAngelis CD. Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA 2000;284:2237-2238.
47. Hall MA, Camacho F, Dugan E, Balkrishnan R. Trust in the medical profession: Conceptual and measurement issues. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1419-1439.
48. Wilkie T. Sources in science: Who can we trust? Lancet 1996;347:1308-1311.