Hype and Public Trust in Science

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 321-335

  Master, Zubin ^a   Resnik, David B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Hype; Public support enthusiasm; Public trust; Responsible conduct of research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EDUCATION; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MASS COMMUNICATION; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; TRUST;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMUNICATION; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; TRUST;

EID: 84878288389     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9327-6     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921-933.
2. Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354-1360.
3. Berger, R. L. (1990). Nazi science-the Dachau hypothermia experiments. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1435-1440.
4. Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21-29.
5. Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype-accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3-21.
6. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2004). Do the print media "hype" genetics research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(9), 1399-1407.
7. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: Technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28(9), 447-451.
8. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.
9. Carlson, E. F. (2006). Times of triumph, times of doubt: Science and the battle of public trust. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
10. Caulfield, T. (2005). Popular media, biotechnology, and the 'cycle of hype'. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 5(2), 213-233.
11. Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 303-313.
12. Caulfield, T., Rachul, C., & Zarzeczny, A. (2010). 'Neurohype' and the name game: Who's to blame. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 13-15.
13. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
14. Conrad, P. (1999). Use of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 285-302.
15. Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25(2), 225-247.
16. Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., Williams, M. V., & Moody-Ayers, S. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537-546.
17. Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309-327.
18. Cunningham-Burley, S. (2006). Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genetics, 9(3), 204-210.
19. Doerflinger, R. M. (2008). The problem of deception in embryonic stem cell research. Cell Proliferation, 41(Suppl 1), 65-70.
20. Downey, R., & Geransar, R. (2008). Stem cell research, publics' and stakeholder views. Health Law Review, 16(2), 69-85.
21. Dresser, R. (2001). When science offers salvation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22. Dresser, R. (2010). Stem cell research as innovation: Expanding the ethical and policy conversation. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 332-341.
23. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14.
24. Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J., & Catney, P. (2009). 'Trust me, I'm a scientist (not a developer)': Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 288-297.
25. Enserink, M. (1999). Ag biotech moves to mollify its critics. Science, 286(5445), 1666-1668.
26. Evans, G., & Durant, T. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74.
27. Evans, J. P., Meslin, E. M., Marteau, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2011). Deflating the genomics bubble. Science, 331(6019), 861-862.
28. Freimuth, V. S., Quinn, S. C., Thomas, S. B., Cole, G., Zook, E., & Duncan, T. (2001). African Americans' views on research and the Tuskegee syphilis study. Social Science and Medicine, 52(5), 797-808.
29. Gartner. com. (2011). Gartner hype cycle. http://www. gartner. com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle. jsp#. Accessed January 22, 2011.
30. Gottweis, H. (2002). Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust. Gene Therapy, 9(11), 667-669.
31. Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, M. B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., et al. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61-69.
32. Katz, J. with Capron, A. M., & Glass, E. S. (2003). The Jewish chronic disease hospital case. In E. Emanuel, R. A. Crouch, J. D. Arras, J. D. Moreno & C. Grady (Eds.) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research. Readings and commentary (pp. 11-15). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
33. Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25-43.
34. Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in the biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545-562.
35. Kimmelman, J. (2010). Gene transfer and the ethics of first-in-human research. Lost in translation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kitzinger, J., & Williams, C. (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science and Medicine, 61(3), 731-740.
37. Knowles, L. P. (2009). Stem cell hype and the dangers of stem cell 'tourism'. Ethics White Paper for the Stem Cell Network. http://www. stemcellnetwork. ca/uploads/File/whitepapers/Stem-Cell-Hype. pdf. Accessed February 20, 2011.
38. Kohn, D. B., Sadelain, M., & Glorioso, J. C. (2003). Occurrence of leukaemia following gene therapy for X-linked SCID. Nature Reviews Cancer, 3(7), 477-488.
39. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
40. Liu, S. V. (2009). Fast protest against a fast hype on iPS cells. Top Watch, 4(2), 44-47.
41. Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704-718.
42. Master, Z., & Ozdemir, V. (2008). Selling translational research: Is science a value-neutral autonomous enterprise? American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 52-54.
43. Master, Z, & Resnik, D. B. (2011). Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. EMBO Reports, 12(10), 992-995.
44. Mello, M. M., & Wolf, L. E. (2010). The Havasupai Indian tribe case-lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 204-207.
45. Mooney, C. (2010). Do scientists understand the public?. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
46. Murphy, E. R., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4-5), 293-302.
47. Nature. (2006). Nature milestones cancer (Milestones Timeline). Nature, S7-S23. http://www. nature. com/milestones/milecancer/timeline. html. Accessed March 6, 2011.
48. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science (revised edition). New York, NY: WH Freeman.
49. Nisbet, M. (2004). Explaining majority support for stem cell research. Skeptical Inquirer. http://www. csicop. org/specialarticles/show/explaining_majority_support_for_stem_cell_research/. Accessed February 12, 2011.
50. Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perception of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421-440.
51. Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American Media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359-391.
52. Ogbogu, U. (2006). A review of pressing ethical issues relevant to stem cell translational research. Health Law Review, 14(3), 39-43.
53. Peddie, V. L., Porter, M., Counsell, C., Caie, L., Pearson, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2009). 'Not taken in by media hype': How potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research. Human Reproduction, 24(5), 1106-1113.
54. Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine, 52(8), 1255-1268.
55. Petersen, A. (2002). Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in wake of Dolly. Body and Society, 8(4), 71-90.
56. Petersen, A. (2009). The ethics of expectations: Biobanks and the promise of personalized medicine. Monash Bioethics Reviews, 28(1), 05. 1-05. 12.
57. Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97-110.
58. Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The 'trust gap' hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751-766.
59. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
60. Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 399-409.
61. Ryan, K. A., Sanders, A. M., Wang, D. D., & Levine, A. D. (2010). Tracking the rise of stem cell tourism. Regenerative Medicine, 5(1), 27-33.
62. Schrage, M. (2004). Great expectations. Technology Review, 107(8), 21.
63. Shamoo, A. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.
65. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719.
66. Somia, N., & Verma, I. M. (2000). Gene therapy: Trials and tribulations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1(2), 91-99.
67. Steel, M. (2005). Molecular medicine: Promises, promises? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(5), 197-199.
68. Tang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241-1252.
69. The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. (1999). "hype" Oxford University Press.
70. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Science Literacy Papers, 1, 1-14. http://www. core. org. cn/NR/rdonlyres/Science-Technology-and-Society/STS-014Spring-2006/2737FE74-34D6-4A16-A7DD-95F0FBE60BA0/0/durant_promote. pdf. Accessed May 14, 2011.
71. Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. The Lancet, 347(9008), 1087-1090.
72. Tyson, P. (2000). 'The Experiments' in results of death-camp experiments: Should they be used? NOVA online (Holocaust on Trial). http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experiside. html. Accessed March 5, 2011.
73. Wellcome Trust (1998). Public perspectives on human cloning. http://www. wellcome. ac. uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTD003422. htm. Accessed February 21, 2011.
74. Wellcome Trust (2005). Information and attitudes: Consulting the public about biomedical science. http://www. wellcome. ac. uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTX026430. htm. Accessed February 21, 2011.
75. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4), 403-416.
76. Williams-Jones, B. (2004). A spoonful of trust helps nanotech go down. Health Law Review, 12(3), 10-13.
77. Williams-Jones, B., & Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Rhetoric and hype: Where's the 'ethics' in pharmacogenomics. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics, 3(6), 375-383.
78. Wilson, J. M. (2009). A history lesson for stem cells. Science, 324(5928), 727-728.
79. Yarborough, M., & Sharp, R. R. (2009). Public trust and research a decade later: What have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger's death? Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, 97(1), 4-5.
80. Zarzeczny, A., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell tourism and doctors' duties to minors-a view from Canada. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(5), 3-15.
81. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 99-105.