Literature DB >> 29531076

Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson1,2.   

Abstract

After documenting the existence and exploring some implications of three alternative news narratives about science and its challenges, this essay outlines ways in which those who communicate science can more accurately convey its investigatory process, self-correcting norms, and remedial actions, without in the process legitimizing an unwarranted "science is broken/in crisis" narrative. The three storylines are: (i) quest discovery, which features scientists producing knowledge through an honorable journey; (ii) counterfeit quest discovery, which centers on an individual or group of scientists producing a spurious finding through a dishonorable one; and (iii) a systemic problem structure, which suggests that some of the practices that protect science are broken, or worse, that science is no longer self-correcting or in crisis.

Keywords:  framing scientific self-correction; narrative; scientific narratives; scientific news coverage

Year:  2018        PMID: 29531076      PMCID: PMC5856501          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708276114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  24 in total

1.  The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review.

Authors:  J COHEN
Journal:  J Abnorm Soc Psychol       Date:  1962-09

2.  Statistical power of psychological research: what have we gained in 20 years?

Authors:  J S Rossi
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1990-10

3.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research.

Authors:  C Glenn Begley; Lee M Ellis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed.

Authors:  Brian Deer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-01-05

5.  Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Briony Swire; Darren Chang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

6.  Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

Authors:  Florian Prinz; Thomas Schlange; Khusru Asadullah
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 84.694

7.  1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.

Authors:  Monya Baker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Anxioselective anxiolytics: on a quest for the Holy Grail.

Authors:  Phil Skolnick
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 14.819

9.  Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.

Authors:  Man-Pui Sally Chan; Christopher R Jones; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Dolores Albarracín
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-09-12

10.  Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Sander Greenland; Mark A Hlatky; Muin J Khoury; Malcolm R Macleod; David Moher; Kenneth F Schulz; Robert Tibshirani
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  6 in total

1.  Strengthening the Medical Error "Meme Pool".

Authors:  Benjamin L Mazer; Chadi Nabhan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Changing times for science and the public: Science journalists' roles for the responsible communication of science.

Authors:  Suzana Liskauskas; Mariana D Ribeiro; Sonia Mr Vasconcelos
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 3.  Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: A seeming paradox.

Authors:  Richard M Shiffrin; Katy Börner; Stephen M Stigler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies.

Authors:  David B Allison; Richard M Shiffrin; Victoria Stodden
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative.

Authors:  Olavo B Amaral; Kleber Neves; Ana P Wasilewska-Sampaio; Clarissa Fd Carneiro
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Sheeba Samuel; Birgitta König-Ries
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.984

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.