Fictional television shows and films convey cultural assumptions about scientists and the research enterprise. But how do these forms of entertainment portray medical research participants? We sampled 65 television shows and films released between 2004 and 2014 to determine the ways in which medical research and human participants are represented in popular media. We found that research participants are largely represented as White, male, and lower or working class and that 40% of the participants depicted in these fictional accounts were seeking financial compensation, 34% were hoping for a therapeutic benefit, and 15% were coerced into participation. Regardless of participant motivation, media representations tended to portray a negative outcome of medical research. Interpreting the themes in these media, we argue that these fictional portrayals might provide the public with valuable representations of medical research, especially in terms of risks to research participants, scientific failure, and researchers’ conflicts of interest.
AbadieR (2010) The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
AgrestiAFinlayB (2009) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
AltheideDL (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
AngellM (2004) The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It. New York, NY: Random House.
5.
BiddleJ (2007) Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology21(1): 21–39.
6.
BourdaaMKonsmanJPSecailCVenturiniTVeyrat-MassonIGononF (2015) Does television reflect the evolution of scientific knowledge? The case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder coverage on French television. Public Understanding of Science24(2): 200–209.
7.
ChimbaMKitzingerJ (2010) Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 609–624.
8.
ChristidouVKouvatasA (2013) Visual self-images of scientists and science in Greece. Public Understanding of Science22(1): 91–109.
9.
ColeSA (2015) A surfeit of science: The “CSI effect” and the media appropriation of the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science24(2): 130–146.
10.
ColeSADiosoR (2011) Should judges worry about the “CSI effect”?Court Review47: 20–31.
11.
ColeSADioso-VillaR (2007) CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden of proof. New England Law Review41: 435–470.
12.
DiMasiJAFeldmanLSecklerAWilsonA (2010) Trends in risks associated with new drug development: Success rates for investigational drugs. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics87(3): 272–277.
13.
DingwallRAldridgeM (2006) Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: A case study of evolution. Public Understanding of Science15(2): 131–152.
14.
DudoABrossardDShanahanJScheufeleDAMorganMSignorielliN (2010) Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research38(6): 754–777.
15.
EpsteinS (2007) Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
FarréMBoschFRosetPNBañosJ-E (2004) Putting clinical pharmacology in context: The use of popular movies. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology44(1): 30–36.
17.
FisherJA (2007) “Ready-to-recruit” or “ready-to-consent” populations? Informed consent and the limits of subject autonomy. Qualitative Inquiry13(6): 875–894.
18.
FisherJA (2009) Medical Research for Hire: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
19.
FisherJA (2015) Feeding and bleeding: The institutional banalization of risk to healthy volunteers in Phase I pharmaceutical clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values40(2): 199–226.
20.
FisherJACottinghamMDKalbaughCA (2015) Peering into the pharmaceutical “pipeline”: Investigational drugs, clinical trials, and industry priorities. Social Science & Medicine131: 322–330.
21.
GetzKA (2013) Public perceptions are turning the corner. Applied Clinical Trials22(5): 22–23.
22.
Hennink-KaminskiHJWilloughbyJFMcMahanD (2014) Join the conquest: Developing a campaign to increase participation in clinical research in North Carolina. Science Communication36(1): 30–55.
23.
HessDJ (1995) Science & Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts & Artifacts. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
24.
JensenE (2008) The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype in the British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 123–143.
25.
JonesR (2001) “Why can’t you scientists leave things alone?” Science questioned in British films of the post-war period (1945–1970). Public Understanding of Science10: 365–382.
26.
KirbyDA (2003) Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science33(2): 231–268.
27.
LeyBLJankowskiNBrewerPR (2010) Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science21(1): 51–67.
28.
LightDWLexchinJDarrowJJ (2013) Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41(3): 590–600.
29.
LongMBoiarskyGThayerG (2001) Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science10: 255–269.
30.
LoweTBrownKDessaiSde França DoriaMHaynesKVincentK (2006) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science15(4): 435–457.
31.
O’NeillRD (2006) “Frankenstein to futurism”: Representations of organ donation and transplantation in popular culture. Transplantation Reviews20(4): 222–230.
32.
OrthiaLA (2010) Antirationalist critique or fifth column of scientism? Challenges from Doctor Who to the mad scientist trope. Public Understanding of Science20(4): 525–542.
RedfearnS (2012) Toshiba ultrabook TV ad puts clinical trials in spotlight, spurring ACRO into action over patient portrayal. Center Watch Weekly16(47): 1–4.
35.
ReidG (2012) The television drama-documentary (dramadoc) as a form of science communication. Public Understanding of Science21(8): 984–1001.
36.
RoseC (2003) How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understanding of Science12: 289–296.
37.
SchäferMS (2012) Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 650–663.
38.
SteinkeJ (1997) A portrait of a woman as a scientist: Breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes. Public Understanding of Science6: 409–428.
39.
SteinkeJ (2005) Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication27(1): 27–63.
40.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
41.
TukachinskyRMastroDYarchiM (2015) Documenting portrayals of race/ethnicity on primetime television over a 20-year span and their association with national-level racial/ethnic attitudes. Journal of Social Issues71(1): 17–38.
42.
Van GorpBRommesEEmonsP (2014) From the wizard to the doubter: Prototypes of scientists and engineers in fiction and non-fiction media aimed at Dutch children and teenagers. Public Understanding of Science23(6): 646–659.
43.
WendlerDKingtonRMadansJWyeGVChrist-SchmidtHPrattLA. (2006) Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research?PLoS Medicine3(2): e19.
44.
YangYCarlinASFaustinoPJPagan MottaMIHamadMLHeR. (2009) Participation of women in clinical trials for new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000–2002. Journal of Women’s Health18(3): 303–310.
