Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press

PLoS ONE

Volumn 2, Issue 12, 2007, Pages

  Cook, Daniel M ^a   Boyd, Elizabeth A ^b   Grossmann, Claudia ^b   Bero, Lisa A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; FUNDING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MASS MEDIUM; PUBLIC RELATIONS; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STANDARD; SCIENCE;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE;

EID: 44249086888     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001266     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Clark F, Illman DL (2006) A Longitudinal Study of the New York Times Science Times Section. Science Communication 27: 496-513.
2. Winsten JA (1985) Science and the Media: The Boundaries of Truth. Health Affairs 4: 5-23.
3. Nelkin D (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
4. Jernigan DH, Wright PA (1996) Media Advocacy: Lessons from Community Experiences. Journal of Public Health Policy 17: 306-330.
5. Phillips D, Kanter E, Bednarczyk B, Tastad P (1991) Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine 325: 1180-1183.
6. Kua E, Reder M, Grossel MJ (2004) Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science 13: 309-322.
7. Pellechia MG (1997) Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science 6: 49-68.
8. Moynihan R, Sweet M (2000) Medicine, the media and monetary interests: the need for transparency and professionalism. Medical Journal or Australia 173: 631-1534.
9. Caulfield T (2004) The Commercialisation of Medical and Scientific Reporting. PLoS Medicine 1: 178-179.
10. Friedman P (2002) The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 413-420.
11. Drazen J, Koski G (2000) To protect those who serve [editorial]. New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1643-1645.
12. Baltimore D (1989) The worsening climate for biological research: is the public losing faith in science? Technology Review 92: 22, 24.
13. Lexchin J, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167-1170.
14. Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA 289. 454-465.
15. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS (2007) Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles. PLoS Medicine 4: e5.
16. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K (2007) Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug-Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others. PLoS Medicine 4: 1001-1010.
17. Boyd E, Cho M, Bero L (2003) Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Academic Medicine 78: 769-774.
18. Boyd E, Bero L (2000) Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships with Industry. JAMA 284: 2209-2214.
19. Dana J, Loewenstein G (2003) A Social Science Perspective on Gifts to Physicians From Industry. JAMA 290: 252-255.
20. Bern L (2005) Tobacco Industry Manipulation of Research. Public Health Reports 120: 200-208.
21. Ancker JS, Flanagin A (2007) A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 147-157.
22. Campbell P (2001) Declaration of financial interests. Nature 412: 751.
23. Kennedy D (2004) Disclosure and Disinterest. Science 303: 15.
24. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, et al. (1993) An Index of Scientific Quality for Health Reports in the Lay Press. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 987-1001.
25. Shuchman M, Wilkes MS (1997) Medical Scientists and Health News Reporting: A Case of Miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine 126: 976-982.
26. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, et al. (2000) Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine 342: 1645-1650.
27. Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah E, Rodgers JE, Tambor E, et al. (2005) The Quality of Media Reports on Discoveries Related to Human Genetic Diseases. Community Genetics 8: 133-144.
28. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Gardner M, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA (2005) Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: Toward an ethic of trust in science journalism. Genetics in Medicine 7: 198-205.
29. McComas KA, Simone LM (2003) Media Coverage of Conflicts of Interest in Science. Science Communication 24: 395-419.
30. Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D (2000) Policies on Faculty Conflicts of Interest at US Universities. JAMA 284: 2203-2208.
31. Rosenstock L, Lee LJ (200) Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy. American Journal of Public Health 92: 14-18.
32. Hively S (2005) News of cloning produces dilemmas. Cleveland Plain Dealer. Final ed. Cleveland OH. pp, E13.
33. Wright D (2005) Tests: Vapor levels too low. Bradenton Herald. Bradenton FL.
34. Bergreen J (2005) Cancer patients sing herceptin's praises: The drug, which won praise this week, has given two Utahns more than a fighting change; Herceptin works wonders for local moms. Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, UT. pp. A1.
35. Branam C (2005) Tiny technology holds giant promise, UA researchers say. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Little Rock.
36. Hunt S (2005) Dupont study finds no link between C8, health problems. Columbus Dispatch. Columbus OH..
37. Massey B (2004) Iceland company partners with UNM on rescirch project. AP.
38. Moynihan R (2001) Tipsheet for Reporting on Drugs, Devices and Medical Technologies. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.
39. Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 325: 1391-1392.