Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers

Abstract

Background: The public gets most of its information about genetic research from the media. It has been suggested that media representations may involve exaggeration, called "genohype." To examine the accuracy and nature of media coverage of genetic research, we reviewed the reporting of single-gene discoveries and associated technologies in major daily newspapers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia. Methods: We used neutral search terms to identify articles about gene discoveries and associated technologies hosted on the Dow Jones Interactive and Canadian NewsDisk databases from January 1995 to June 2001. We compared the contents, claims and conclusions of the scientific journal article with those of the associated newspaper article. Coders subjectively assigned the newspaper articles to 1 of 3 categories: moderately to highly exaggerated claims, slightly exaggerated claims or no exaggerated claims. We used classification tree software to identify the variables that contributed to the assignment of each newspaper article to 1 of the 3 categories: attention structure (positioning in the newspaper and length of the article), authorship, research topic, source of information other than the scientific paper, type and likelihood of risks and benefits, discussion of controversy, valuation tone (positive or negative), framing (e.g., description of research, celebration of progress, report of economic prospects or ethical perspective), technical accuracy (either omissions or errors that changed the description of the methods or interpretation of the results) and use of metaphors. Results: We examined 627 newspaper articles reporting on 111 papers published in 24 scientific and medical journals. Only 11% of the newspaper articles were categorized as having moderately to highly exaggerated claims; the majority were categorized as having no claims (63%) or slightly exaggerated claims (26%). The classification analysis ranked the reporting of risks as the most important variable in determining the categorization of newspaper articles. Only 15% of the newspaper articles and 5% of the scientific journal articles discussed costs or risks, whereas 97% of the newspaper articles and 98% of the scientific journal articles discussed the likelihood of benefits of the research. Interpretation: Our data suggest that the majority of newspaper articles accurately convey the results of and reflect the claims made in scientific journal articles. Our study also highlights an overemphasis on benefits and under-representation of risks in both scientific and newspaper articles. The cause and nature of this trend is uncertain.

Joining the Conversation: Newspaper Journalists' Views on Working with Researchers

“…In addition to such contacts, however, our participants indicated that they appreciated relationships with researchers who invest time to synthesize and communicate research evidence on a continuing basis. Other studies have similarly concluded that researcher-journalist relationships were crucial for accurate and ethical news coverage of such complex health topics as genetic discoveries (Geller et al 2005), and that researchers bore some responsibility for ensuring that news coverage was constructive (Bubela and Caulfield 2004). Ongoing relationships with journalists appear to offer a constructive opportunity for policy-oriented health researchers to go beyond the promotion of single studies to convey more nuanced interpretations of bodies of research evidence in the service of improving health and healthcare.…”

“…When scientific articles receive prominent newspaper coverage, subsequent scientific articles cite the authors significantly more frequently (Phillips et al 1991;Kiernan 2003). Interestingly, newspaper articles can accurately convey health researchers' results and claims, even to the point of mirroring researchers' own claims overemphasizing benefits and under-representing risks of new health technologies, suggesting that research- Charlotte Waddell et al Given the abundant critiques and the evident reciprocity, surprisingly few studies have investigated research coverage issues from journalists' perspectives ers can be complicit in conveying exaggerated messages (Bubela and Caulfield 2004).…”

Media portrayal of non-invasive prenatal testing: a missing ethical dimension

“…News media coverage has been largely unbalanced -either emphasizing the negative consequences of genetics (e.g., insurance or employment discrimination, and the possibility of human genetic modification) and thus instilling fear in people, or misleading the public about the potential of genetic research for medicine [Geller, Bernhardt and Holtzman, 2002]. Studies have revealed a media tendency to present overly optimistic portrayals of the relevance of genetics to individual health and to exaggerate the potential health benefits of genetic testing -a phenomenon known as "genohype" [Caulfield, 2004;Holtzman, 1999;Bubela and Caulfield, 2004].…”

The New Incinerator in Parma and the News from Newspapers - The Importance of Communication in Terms of "Environment and Health"

“…It is a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation, since k takes into account the possibility of the agreement occurring by chance. [19] We have considered the role of expert/inexperienced coders: the agreement was good both among young reviewers, and between the experienced professor and each young classifier. In this way, we have tried to analyze with a science-based approach a world that usually lends to opinions, such as news.…”

“…The articles have been classified in a specific topic area if the highest score were corresponding to the sum of the same topic frameworks (table 1). [18][19][20] The classification of articles in topic areas was carried out by three evaluators: two inexperienced young (classifiers A and B) and one professor with experience in the field (classifier C).…”