Literature DB >> 15775756

Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: toward an ethic of trust in science journalism.

Gail Geller1, Barbara A Bernhardt, Mary Gardner, Joann Rodgers, Neil A Holtzman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the relationship between scientists and science writers and their experiences with media reporting of genetic discoveries.
METHODS: This study included individual interviews with 15 scientists who specialize in genetics and 22 science writers who have covered their stories and a qualitative analysis of the data.
RESULTS: Scientists and science writers place an equally high priority on accuracy of media reports. They agree on what makes genetics stories newsworthy and the particular challenges in reporting genetic discoveries (i.e., poor public understanding of genetics, the association of genetics with eugenics, and the lack of immediately apparent applications of genetic discoveries to human health). The relationship between scientists and bona fide science writers is largely positive. Scientists tend to trust, respect, and be receptive to science writers. Both scientists and science writers acknowledge that trust is an essential component of a good interview. Science writers report a fair degree of autonomy with respect to the relationship they have with their editors.
CONCLUSION: To the degree that trust facilitates the access that science writers have to scientists, as well as higher quality interviews between scientists and science writers, trust might also contribute to higher quality media reporting. Therefore, scientists and science writers have an ethical obligation to foster trusting relationships with each other. Future research should systematically explore ways to cultivate such relationships and assess their impact on the quality of science journalism.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15775756     DOI: 10.1097/01.gim.0000156699.78856.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  5 in total

1.  Science communication reconsidered.

Authors:  Tania Bubela; Matthew C Nisbet; Rick Borchelt; Fern Brunger; Cristine Critchley; Edna Einsiedel; Gail Geller; Anil Gupta; Jürgen Hampel; Robyn Hyde-Lay; Eric W Jandciu; S Ashley Jones; Pam Kolopack; Summer Lane; Tim Lougheed; Brigitte Nerlich; Ubaka Ogbogu; Kathleen O'Riordan; Colin Ouellette; Mike Spear; Stephen Strauss; Thushaanthini Thavaratnam; Lisa Willemse; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Joining the conversation: newspaper journalists' views on working with researchers.

Authors:  Charlotte Waddell; Jonathan Lomas; John N Lavis; Julia Abelson; Cody A Shepherd; Twylla Bird-Gayson
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2005-09

3.  Development of a Scale to Measure Trust in Public Health Authorities: Prevalence of Trust and Association with Vaccination.

Authors:  Taylor A Holroyd; Rupali J Limaye; Jennifer E Gerber; Rajiv N Rimal; Rashelle J Musci; Janesse Brewer; Andrea Sutherland; Madeleine Blunt; Gail Geller; Daniel A Salmon
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2021-05-16

4.  Medicine and the media: Medical experts' problems and solutions while working with journalists.

Authors:  Anna Larsson; Susanna Appel; Carl Johan Sundberg; Mårten Rosenqvist
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press.

Authors:  Daniel M Cook; Elizabeth A Boyd; Claudia Grossmann; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.