IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v62y2006i10p2373-2385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the new human genetics: A review of scientific editorials

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, Fiona Alice
  • Ahern, Catherine
  • Smith, Christopher A.
  • Harvey, Erin A.

Abstract

Developments in genetics are expected to have a profound impact on health and health care, yet much remains to be learned about how leaders of the research and clinical communities view and frame these expectations. We conducted a comprehensive review of editorials about developments in genetic medicine published in scientific journals, to understand what this elite group of commentators anticipate. Editorials are an important resource for understanding how the new genetics is understood and portrayed. They allow leaders of the research and clinical communities to communicate to each other and informed publics, and are a forum for the expression of widely shared elite beliefs and opinions. We analyzed selected editorials for content and metaphoric language to explore attitudes and expectations concerning developments in genetic science and technology. Our analysis suggests that a diverse group of leaders of the research and clinical communities are remarkably uniform in their discourse about the future of genetic medicine. Editorialists have great expectations for developments in basic science and in the comprehension and management of disease. They also anticipate important effects on health care, notably the health care professions, and on wider society. Yet editorialists do not discuss these prospects in a consistently positive or optimistic manner, and they utilize metaphoric imagery that emphasizes the inexorable nature of progress, and the sometimes ominous manner in which developments emerge. The dominant discourse of editorialists claims authority for clinicians and researchers and asserts a broad sphere of expertise, but it also positions these leaders as handmaidens of a science they do not control, and insists that their ultimate contribution is to prepare themselves and others for the inexorable march of progress.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Fiona Alice & Ahern, Catherine & Smith, Christopher A. & Harvey, Erin A., 2006. "Understanding the new human genetics: A review of scientific editorials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2373-2385, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:10:p:2373-2385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00607-6
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petersen, Alan, 2001. "Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(8), pages 1255-1268, April.
    2. Benelli, Eva, 2003. "The role of the media in steering public opinion on healthcare issues," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 179-186, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kuo, Wen-Hua, 2011. "Techno-politics of genomic nationalism: Tracing genomics and its use in drug regulation in Japan and Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1200-1207.
    2. Boon, Wouter & Moors, Ellen, 2008. "Exploring emerging technologies using metaphors - A study of orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1915-1927, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waters, Erika A. & Ball, Linda & Gehlert, Sarah, 2017. "“I don’t believe it.” Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 153-160.
    2. Ozgun, Burcu & Broekel, Tom, 2021. "The geography of innovation and technology news - An empirical study of the German news media," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Kitzinger, Jenny & Williams, Clare, 2005. "Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 731-740, August.
    4. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    5. Racine, Eric & Gareau, Isabelle & Doucet, Hubert & Laudy, Danielle & Jobin, Guy & Schraedley-Desmond, Pamela, 2006. "Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992-2001) in Québec," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 1278-1290, March.
    6. Kuo, Wen-Hua, 2011. "Techno-politics of genomic nationalism: Tracing genomics and its use in drug regulation in Japan and Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1200-1207.
    7. Regan de Bere, Sam & Petersen, Alan, 2006. "Out of the dissecting room: News media portrayal of human anatomy teaching and research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 76-88, July.
    8. Collins, Patricia A. & Abelson, Julia & Pyman, Heather & Lavis, John N., 2006. "Are we expecting too much from print media? An analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2002 Canadian healthcare reform debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 89-102, July.
    9. Daw, Jamie R. & Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Law, Michael R., 2013. "Here today, gone tomorrow: The issue attention cycle and national print media coverage of prescription drug financing in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 67-75.
    10. Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.
    11. Mirko Ruzza & Barbara Tiozzo & Valentina Rizzoli & Mosé Giaretta & Laura D'Este & Licia Ravarotto, 2020. "Food Risks on the Web: Analysis of the 2017 Fipronil Alert in the Italian Online Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2071-2092, October.
    12. Mejía, Cristian & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2019. "Technology news and their linkage to production of knowledge in robotics research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 114-124.

    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:62:y:2006:i:10:p:2373-2385. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.