Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992–2001) in Québec

Racine, Éric; Gareau, Isabelle; Doucet, Hubert; Laudy, Danielle; Jobin, Guy; Schraedley-Desmond, Pamela

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.024

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A few studies that focused on U.S. media also suggested that there was "unbalanced" coverage with more focus on benefits than risks [Pauwels and Ifrim, 2008;Pauwels, 2013;Kruvand, 2013] despite Pauwels' [2013] argument that comparatively there was an increase in mention of negative consequences of SB over time. This matches previous research on science communication that found the news tends to focus on the benefits more than the risks when reporting about nanoscale science and new technology [Racine et al, 2006;Weaver, Lively and Bimber, 2009;Anderson et al, 2005;Friedman and Egolf, 2005;Wilkinson et al, 2007]. While in a study of German news coverage, Gschmeidler and Seiringer [2011] found a similar trend, they also report on the presence of ambivalent messages that swung between "Frankenstein" fears of unnatural organisms out of human control being created to "Knight in Shining Armour" promises of synthetic biology solving major health and environmental problems.…”

Section: Previous Media Studies Of Synbiosupporting

confidence: 88%

The story is that there is no story: media framing of synthetic biology and its ethical implications in the New York Times (2005–2015)

Giordano¹,

Chung²

2018

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite low public knowledge of synthetic biology, it is the focus of prominent government and academic ethics debates. We examine the NY Times media coverage of synthetic biology. Our results suggest that the story about synthetic biology remains ambiguous. We found this in four areas -1) on the question of whether the field raises ethical concerns, 2) on its relationship to genetic engineering, 3) on whether or not it threatens 'nature', and 4) on the temporality of these concerns. We suggest that this ambiguity creates conditions in which there becomes no reason for the public at large to become involved. AbstractPublic perception of science and technology; Science and media Keywords https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030202 DOI IntroductionOn February 11, 2005, The New York Times published the op-ed "Biology's New Forbidden Fruit," its first piece engaging directly with the emerging field of synthetic biology (SB). The title, ripe with religious metaphor, foreshadows what became one of the most prevalent aspects of media-reported public debate -whether or not this new science was "playing god." Most interesting for the purposes of our study, in this first article, Morton [2005] calls for wide public engagement. However, in the decade following this inaugural article, there were few publications on this topic in The New York Times and other major media outlets, while SB and the ethics surrounding it became a major topic in research and policy arenas. In this study we analyze news articles about synthetic biology in the first decade of The New York Times reporting on the field. We focus on the curious relationship between the low volume of reporting on the field, low public knowledge of the field along with the high level of attention to ethical, moral and political implications of the field by the practitioners and the government. We know from media studies that media plays a large role in how public understands science. Hence, we are interested in how SB is presented in the media. In this study, we asked the broader research question: "How is synthetic biology being reported in the media?" Emerging from the central question is a set of 'problems' concerning potential issues, relationships to nature, relationship to genetic engineering, and the temporality of synthetic biology.

show abstract

Section: Previous Media Studies Of Synbiosupporting

confidence: 88%

The story is that there is no story: media framing of synthetic biology and its ethical implications in the New York Times (2005–2015)

Giordano¹,

Chung²

2018

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other press studies of research such as genomics and genetics and biotechnologies have frequently observed similar optimistic reporting (Conrad 2001;Kohring and Matthes 2002;Moreno, Lujan, and Moreno 1996;Mulkay 1994;Priest and Talbert 1994;Racine et al 2006). A small number of media reports are highly critical (Conrad 2001;Moreno, Lujan, and Moreno 1996;Racine et al 2006). Reporting of fMRI conforms to the majority of these patterns and further illustrates how the expectation of balanced scientific reporting (Rose 2003;Thompson and Nelson 2001) can collide with the social demand for research.…”

Section: Unattended Ethical Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Another study has shown that more than one-third of articles dealing with genomics present ethical issues. This proportion increases when other biotechnological sectors, especially controversial ones such as stem-cell research, reproductive cloning, or new reproductive technologies, figure in the articles (Racine et al 2006). This may be consistent with increased pressures for fast journalism and highly visible stories (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and Damon 2001;Nelkin 1995).…”

Section: Improving Health or Unraveling Mysteries Of The Mind?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain Imaging

Racine

Bar-Ilan

Illes

2006

Science Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in neuroscience are increasingly intersecting with issues of ethical, legal, and social interest. This study is an analysis of press coverage of an advanced technology for brain imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, that has gained significant public visibility over the past ten years. Discussion of issues of scientific validity and interpretation dominated over ethical content in both the popular and specialized press. Coverage of research on higher order cognitive phenomena specifically attributed broad personal and societal meaning to neuroimages. The authors conclude that neuroscience provides an ideal model for exploring science communication and ethics in a multicultural context. Keywordsneuroethics; functional magnetic resonance imaging; press; neuroscience; content analysis; bioethics Advances in neuroscience are intersecting with ethical, legal, and social issues. Some issues concern clinical applications such as the early diagnosis of disease, while others relate to the growing number of studies using frontier neurotechnologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of social behaviors. Here, we present a study on how fMRI, one model of neurotechnology that has diffused rapidly in the research environment and gained substantial visibility, has been covered in the print media. Drawing on lessons learned from press coverage of other scientific domains, we examined the complexity of communication of brain findings and the need for their consideration in a multicultural context.In the past, press coverage of genetics and genomics has brought ethical, social, and legal issues to the forefront. Scholars of bioethics, social sciences, and law, for example, have investigated informed consent, risks of "geneti-cization," and breaches of confidentiality extensively. Vast interdisciplinary programs in numerous countries have addressed these issues and others. Scholars of science communication and other social scientists have played an important role in disseminating the information resulting from this research. For more than two decades, they

show abstract

“…Lines of research relevant to public health genomics have not been immune to hype, if we understand public health genomics within the scope prescribed by this journal’s statement of ‘Aims and Scope’, and thus including ‘the very pressing need for the development of effective personalized healthcare which is complementary to health protection and health promotion,’ and which is taken to include the territory of ‘public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole.’ Fitting within this definition, components of hype have been identified in advertisements for direct-to-consumer genetic testing [8], in research agendas for genomics related to hypertension [9] and pharmocogenomics [10] in news coverage of genomics [11], in stock and venture capital associated with genomics-based research programs [12] as well as in national-level initiatives such as Iceland’s DeCode initiative [13,14]. Indeed, Boddington [15] identifies hype as a characteristic feature of the genomics enterprise, naming as ‘one of its characteristic faults: a pervasive tendency to hype itself up, or to be hyped up by others, such as politicians and the media’ (p. 93).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science and the Sources of Hype

Caulfield

Condit

2012

Public Health Genomics

121

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that genomic research is frequently inappropriately hyped, in both the popular press and the scientific literature, and that this hype has the potential to create a range of social concerns. This paper maps the complex array of social forces that contribute to the phenomenon of hype, including the pressure to publish, the increasingly intense commercialization agenda, the messaging emanating from research institutions, the news media and, even, the public itself. These numerous and interrelated factors create a ‘hype pipeline’ that will be difficult to counter without the utilization of a wide range of policy strategies.

show abstract

Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992–2001) in Québec

Cited by 40 publications

References 24 publications

The story is that there is no story: media framing of synthetic biology and its ethical implications in the New York Times (2005–2015)

The story is that there is no story: media framing of synthetic biology and its ethical implications in the New York Times (2005–2015)

Brain Imaging

Science and the Sources of Hype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About