IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v54y2002i12p1887-1896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story

Author

Listed:
  • Cooper, Crystale Purvis
  • Yukimura, Darcie

Abstract

In numerous incidences, the news coverage of medical research has incited unjustified optimism or fear. The medical literature provides an archive of the scientific community's condemnation of these misleading reports, but little is known about how they are judged by newsmakers. This study explored science writers' reactions to a controversial New York Times story that inflated the hopes of thousands of cancer patients. More than 60 science writers in the US, Canada, and Great Britain participated in a 12-day email discussion triggered by the Times article. We analyzed 255 of these email postings and coded (1) positive and negative critiques of the Times story, (2) references to the article's repercussions including the creation of false hope, (3) attributions of responsibility for the resulting public misunderstanding, and (4) suggestions to improve the public's comprehension of medical research news. The participating science writers generally responded negatively to the controversial article: 83% of the critiques were unfavorable. In addition, the science writers in the sample were cognizant and concerned about the impact of their work on the public, and accepted the largest share of the responsibility for the false hope created by the news coverage of medical research. Finally, the suggestions offered by respondents to improve the public's understanding of medical research news were similar to those proposed by the scientific community. Thus, some commonality exists between how scientists and science writers believe the news coverage of medical research could be improved.

Suggested Citation

  • Cooper, Crystale Purvis & Yukimura, Darcie, 2002. "Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1887-1896, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:12:p:1887-1896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00160-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amanda Wilson & Billie Bonevski & Alison Jones & David Henry, 2009. "Media Reporting of Health Interventions: Signs of Improvement, but Major Problems Persist," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-5, March.
    2. Campbell, Patricia, 2011. "Boundaries and risk: Media framing of assisted reproductive technologies and older mothers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 265-272, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:12:p:1887-1896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.