Objective: To develop an instrument to assess the content and balance of media stories about genetic discoveries relevant to human diseases and assess its ability to detect variability. Methods: Consumer focus groups to help develop the instrument, and surveys of scientists and journalists to evaluate the items. Ratings by at least two readers assessed reliability. Variability was measured by comparing scores of 47 stories emanating from two discoveries.
Results: Reader agreement on content items was good (kappa = 0.74). Consumers, scientists, and journalists were in substantial agreement about what content items should be included. Some items deemed essential by journalists appeared in very few stories. One-third of stories exaggerated the benefits of the discovery and one-third presented a balanced selection of expert opinion. Coverage of specific items varied from 11.5 percent to 84.6 percent.
Conclusions: The instrument is reliable; contains items deemed important by consumers, scientists, and journalists; and detects variability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altman, L. K. 1995. Promises of miracles: News releases go where journals fear to tread. New York Times 10 January:C3.
2.
Atkin, C., and E. B. Arkin. 1990. Issues and initiatives in communicating health information to the public. In Mass communication and public health: Complexities and conflicts, vol. 121, Sage focus edition, edited by C. Atkin and L. Wallack, 13-40. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bernhardt, B. A., G. Geller, E. Tambor, E. Mountcastle-Shah, J. G. Mulle, and N. A. Holtzman. 2000. Analysis of media reports on the discovery of breast and prostate cancer susceptibility genes. American Journal of Human Genetics67:4 (supplement), 62 (abstract).
4.
Burns, R., M. A. Moskowitz, M. A. Osband, and L. E. Kazis. 1995. Newspaper reporting of the medical literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine10:19-24.
5.
Condit, C. M., N. Ofulue, and K. M. Sheedy. 1998. Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. The American Journal of Human Genetics62:979-984.
6.
Conrad, P. 1997. Public eyes and private genes: Historical frames, news constructions, and social problems. Social Problems44:139-154.
7.
Conrad, P. 1999. Uses of expertise: Source, quotes and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science8:285-302.
8.
Conrad, P. 2001. Media images, genetics and culture: Potential impacts of reporting scientific findings on bioethics. In Bioethics in social context, edited by C. B. Hoffmaster, 90-111. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
9.
Conrad, P., and D. Weinberg. 1996. Has the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980? A news media analysis. Perspectives on Social Problems8:3-25.
10.
Geller, G., B. A. Bernhardt, and N. A. Holtzman. 2002. The media and public reaction to genetic research. JAMA287:773.
11.
Geller, G., E. S. Tambor, B. A. Bernhardt, J. E. Rodgers, and N. A. Holtzman. 2003. Houseofficers' reaction to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome. Social Science and Medicine, 56:2211-2220.
12.
Highfield, R. 2000. Selling science to the public. Science289:59.
13.
Kinsella, J. 1989. Covering the plague: AIDS and the American media. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
14.
Klaidman, S. 1991. Health in the headlines: The stories behind the stories. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Miki, Y., J. Swensen, D. Shattuck-Eidens, P.A. Futreal, K. Harshman, S. Tavtigian, et al. 1994. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science266:66-71.
16.
Moynihan, R., L. Bero, D. Ross-Degnan, D. Henry, K. Lee, J. Watkins, C. Mah, and S. B. Soumerai. 2000. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine342:1645-1650.
17.
Nelkin, D., and S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as cultural icon. New York: W.H. Freeman.
18.
Oxman, A.D., G.H. Guyatt, D.J. Cook, R. Jaeschke, N. Heddle, and J. Keller. 1993. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology46:987-1001.
19.
Petersen, A. 2001. Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine52:1255-1268.
20.
Phillips, D. P., E. J. Kanter, B. Bednarczyk, and P.L. Tastad. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine325:1180-1183.
21.
Rensberger, B. 2000. The nature of evidence. Science289:61.
22.
Schuchman, M., and M. S. Wilkes. 1997. Medical scientists and health news reporting: A case of miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine126:976-982.
23.
Schwartz, L. M., S. Woloshin, and L. Baczec. 2002. Media coverage of scientific meetings: Too much, too soon? JAMA287:2859-2863.
24.
Smith, J. R., D. Freije, J. D. Carpten, H. Grönberg, J. Xu, S. D. Isaacs, M. J. Brownstein, G. S. Bova, H. Guo, P. Bujnovszky, D. R. Nusskern, J. Damber, A. Bergh, M. Emanuelsson, O. P. Kallioniemi, J. Walker-Daniels, J. E. Bailey-Wilson, T. H. Beaty, D. A. Meyers, P. C. Walsh, F. S. Collins, J. M. Trent, and W. B. Isaacs. 1996. Major susceptibility locus for prostate cancer on chromosome 1 suggested by a genome-wide search. Science274:1371-1373.
25.
Tambor, E. S., B. A.Bernhardt, J. E. Rodgers, N. A. Holtzman, and G. Geller. 2002. Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genetics Medicine4:31-36.
26.
Terry, P. D., A. B. Miller, and T. E. Rohan. 2002. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: A long latency period? International Journal of Cancer100:723-726.
27.
Woloshin, S., and L. M. Schwartz. 2002. Press releases: Translating research into news. JAMA287:2856-2858.
