Literature DB >> 30613038

Spinning the Genome: Why Science Hype Matters.

Timothy Caulfield.   

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature that describes both the degree to which science is hyped and how and why that hype happens. Hype can be described as an inappropriate exaggeration of the significance or potential value of a particular study or area of science. Evidence tells us that this spin happens throughout the science translation process. There is hype in research grants, peer-reviewed publications, scientific abstracts, institutional press releases, media representations, and, of course, in the associated marketing of a new product. There is also evidence that it has played a particularly significant role in the area of genetic research. Science hype is a complex phenomenon that involves many actors. And it is, at least to some degree, the result of systemic pressures imbedded in the current incentives associated with biomedical research. This article reviews what the evidence says about the sources of hype, the social and scientific harms, and what can be done to nudge us in the right direction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30613038     DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Biol Med        ISSN: 0031-5982            Impact factor:   1.416


  9 in total

1.  When fiction becomes fact: exaggerating host manipulation by parasites.

Authors:  Jean-François Doherty
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Fostering a prevention mindset for responsible gene editing.

Authors:  Karen M Meagher; Zubin Master
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  Twentieth-century science education and 21st-century genetic engineering technologies: A toxic mix.

Authors:  Mark Yarborough
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Patients' Expectations of Benefits From Large-Panel Genomic Tumor Testing in Rural Community Oncology Practices.

Authors:  Eric C Anderson; John DiPalazzo; Emily Edelman; Petra Helbig; Kate Reed; Susan Miesfeldt; Christian Thomas; F Lee Lucas; Anny T H R Fenton; Andrey Antov; Michael J Hall; J Scott Roberts; Jens Rueter; Paul K J Han
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-09-29

5.  Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

Authors:  Margaret Waltz; Anya E R Prince; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Bradford C Powell; Jonathan S Berg
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research.

Authors:  Amanda Amberg; Darren N Saunders
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Experts' moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  N de Graeff; Karin R Jongsma; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 8.  What Makes Artificial Intelligence Exceptional in Health Technology Assessment?

Authors:  Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon; Vincent Couture; Marie-Christine Roy; Isabelle Ganache; Mireille Goetghebeur; I Glenn Cohen
Journal:  Front Artif Intell       Date:  2021-11-02

9.  Comparison of Patient and Expert Perceptions of the Attainment of Research Milestones in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Patrick Bodilly Kane; Daniel M Benjamin; Roger A Barker; Anthony E Lang; Todd Sherer; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 10.338

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.