This paper explores the medicalization-of-science-news thesis. Considering the results from surveys and media analyses, biomedical news appears to be the current core of the public representation of science. Why is this the case? A historical approach may bring us one step closer to an answer. A longitudinal analysis of science in the press demonstrates a shift in the core representation of science in the 1930s, and again in the 1980s/1990s, a trend change in the late 1960s, and the assimilation of science reportage to the rhetoric of biomedical news. The physical sciences provided the main source of social imagination during an unlikely intermezzo between the early 1930s and the early 1980s. Two speculations on this long-term shift are developed: (a) the medicalization of modern society may explain the recent shift, and (b) the resistance function of social representations of science may explain the long-term change.
ADITC (1991) Australian Science and Innovation Impact Brief, Section 5: Science and Technology News in the Media. Canberra: Australian Department for Industry, Technology and Commerce.
2.
Aristotle (1991) The Art of Rhetoric. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
3.
Bauer, M. (1995) “Towards a Functional Analysis of Resistance”, in M. Bauer (ed.) Resistance to New Technology - Nuclear Power, Information Technology, Biotechnology, pp. 393-418. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Bauer, M. (1998) “Science in the Media as Cultural Indicator: Contextualising Surveys with Media Analysis”, in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Reading: Harwood Academic.
5.
Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (forthcoming) “Towards a Paradigm for Social Representations Research”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour.
6.
Bauer, M. and Schoon, I. (1993) “Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science”, Public Understanding of Science2 (2): 141-155.
7.
Bauer, M. , Durant, J., Ragnarsdottir, A. and Rudolfsdottir, A. (1995) The Science Museum Media Monitor - Science in the Post-War British Press, Report Vol. 1-4. London: Science Museum and the Wellcome Trust for the History of Medicine.
8.
Block, P. (1984) “Newspaper Content as a Secularization Indicator”, in G. Melischek, K. E. Rosengren and J. Stoppers (eds) Cultural Indicators: An International Symposium, pp. 177-194. Vienna: Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
9.
Bradshaw, G. J. (1995) “A Comparative Content Analysis of Three Quality Newspapers during the 1995 Science Week”, unpublished Master's thesis, Imperial College, Science Communications Programme, London.
10.
Burnham, J. D. (1987) How Superstition Won and Science Lost. Popularising Science and Health in the United States. New Brunswick: RUP.
11.
Cohen, L. R. and Noll, R. G. (1994) “Privatising Public Research”, Scientific American (Sept.): 58-63.
12.
Conrad, P. (1992) “Medicalization and Social Control”, Annual Review of Sociology18: 209-232.
13.
Dixon, P. (1971) Rhetoric. London: Routledge.
14.
Durant, J. , Evans, G. and Thomas, G. (1992) “Public Understanding of Science in Britain: The Role of Medicine in the Popular Representation of Science”, Public Understanding of Science1: 161-183.
15.
Entwistle, V. (1995) “Preparing, Publicizing and Disseminating Health Research”, Public Understanding of Science4: 75-76.
16.
Entwistle, V. and Hancock-Beaulieu, M. (1992) “Health and Medical Coverage in the UK National Press”, Public Understanding of Science1: 367-382.
17.
Farr, R. (1987) “Social Representations: a French Tradition of Research”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour17 (4): 343-370.
18.
Goepfert, W. (1997) “TV Coverage of Science, Technology, Medicine and Social Science: Programming Policies in Britain and Germany”, manuscript.
19.
Hansen, A. (1994) “Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press”, Public Understanding of Science3: 111-134.
20.
Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1990) “Mediated Science: Mass Media Coverage of Science”, paper presented to the international conference on Politics and Publics for Science, Science Museum, London, April.
21.
Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1992) “Science Coverage in the British Mass Media: Media Output and Source Input”, Communications17 (3): 365-377.
22.
Illich, I. (1975) Medical Nemesis. The Expropriation of Health. London: Calder and Boyars.
23.
Jones, G. , Connell, I. and Meadows, J. (1978) The Presentation of Science by the Media. Leicester: Primary Communications Research Centre.
24.
Jurdant, B. (1993) “Popularization of Science as the Autobiography of Science”, Public Understanding of Science2(4): 365-374.
25.
LaFollette, M. C. (1990) Making Science our Own. Public Images of Science 1910-1955. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Lewenstein, B. (1992) “Industrial Life Insurance, Public Health Campaigns, and Public Communication of Science, 1908-1951”, Public Understanding of Science1: 347-365.
27.
Moscovici, S. (1984) “The Phenomenon of Social Representations”, in R. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Novartis Foundation (1997) Report and Handbook. London: The Novartis Foundation.
29.
Royal Society (1985) Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society of London.
30.
Sklair, L. (1973) Organized Knowledge. London: Paladin.
31.
Thomas, G. and Durant, J. (1987) “Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science?”, in M. Shortland (ed.) Scientific Literacy Papers, pp. 1-14. Oxford: Rewlay House.
32.
Urwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Misunderstandings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Van Tright, A. M. , de Jong-van den Berg, L.T.W., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F.M., Willems, J. and Tromp, T.F.J. (1994) “Medical Journalists and Expert Sources in Medicine”, Public Understanding of Science (3): 309-322.
34.
Wynne, B. (1993) “The Public Uptake of Science: A Case for Institutional Reflexivity”, Public Understanding of Science2(4): 321-338.
