This study provides an in-depth analysis of how scientific uncertainty was conveyed along the dissemination pathway for a novel discovery linking genomic markers to depression risk. In this article, knowledge limitations described in the original scientific paper were mostly omitted from press releases, and a majority of news coverage mirrored press release content. However, the affiliated scientists depicted uncertainty to different degrees, appearing to influence the tenor of each institution’s press release and the news reports for which they were interviewed or quoted. News reports sometimes conveyed more caveats than the original scientific report. This case study presents detailed examples of uncertainty representations in the emerging domain of precision medicine, organized by a typology to guide future research.
AllanS. (2011). Introduction: Science journalism in a digital age. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 12(7), 771–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412688
2.
AppelbaumP. S.BenstonS. (2017). Anticipating the ethical challenges of psychiatric genetic testing. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(7), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0790-x
3.
BinderA. R.HillbackE. D.BrossardD. (2016). Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis, 36(4), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12462
4.
BoffeyP. M.RodgersJ. E.SchneiderS. H. (1999). Interpreting uncertainty: A panel discussion. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 81–91). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
CarlsonC. S.MatiseT. C.NorthK. E.HaimanC. A.FesinmeyerM. D.BuyskeS.SchumacherF. R.PetersU.FranceschiniN.RitchieM. D.DugganD. J.SpencerK. L.DumitrescuL.EatonC. B.ThomasF.YoungA.CartyC.HeissG.Le MarchandL., . . . PAGE Consortium. (2013). Generalization and dilution of association results from European GWAS in populations of non-European ancestry: The PAGE Study. PLOS Biology, 11(9), Article e1001661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001661
CaulfieldT. (2005). Popular media, biotechnology, and the cycle of hype. Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, 5, 213–233.
8.
CaulfieldT. (2018). Spinning the genome: Why science hype matters. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 61(4), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2018.0065
9.
CaulfieldT.ConditC. (2012). Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics, 15(3–4), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336533
10.
CollinsF. S.VarmusH. (2015). A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 793–795. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500523
11.
de SemirV.RibasC.RevueltaG. (1998). Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 294–295. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.294
12.
DixonG. N.ClarkeC. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012458290
13.
Dumas-MalletE.SmithA.BoraudT.GononF. (2018). Scientific uncertainty in the press: How newspapers describe initial biomedical findings. Science Communication, 40(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017752166
14.
ElliottR.TimulakL. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In MilesJ.GilbertP. (Eds.), A handbook of research methods in clinical and health psychology (pp. 147–159). Oxford University Press.
15.
FenglerS.Ruß-MohlS. (2008). Journalists and the information-attention markets: Towards an economic theory of journalism. Journalism, 9(6), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884908096240
FrewerL.HuntS.BrennanM.KuznesofS.NessM.RitsonC. (2003). The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 6(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000047815
18.
FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
GellerG.BernhardtB. A.GardnerM.RodgersJ.HoltzmanN. A. (2005). Scientists’ and science writers’ experiences reporting genetic discoveries: Toward an ethic of trust in science journalism. Genetics in Medicine, 7, 198–205.
20.
GoldacreB. (2014). Preventing bad reporting on health research. British Medical Journal, 349, Article g7465. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7465
21.
GuentherL.BischoffJ.LöweA.MarzinkowskiH.VoigtM. (2019). Scientific evidence and science journalism: Analysing the representation of (un)certainty in German print and online media. Journalism Studies, 20(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1353432
22.
GuentherL.RuhrmannG. (2016). Scientific evidence and mass media: Investigating the journalistic intention to represent scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515625479
23.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122
24.
HanP. K. J.Zikmund-FisherB. J.DuarteC. W.KnausM.BlackA.SchererA. M.FagerlinA. (2018). Communication of scientific uncertainty about a novel pandemic health threat: Ambiguity aversion and its mechanisms. Journal of Health Communication, 23, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2018.1461961
25.
HaneefR.RavaudP.BaronG.GhosnL.BoutronI. (2017). Factors associated with online media attention to research: A cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0033-z
26.
HollisterB.BonhamV. L. (2018). Should electronic health record-derived social and behavioral data be used in precision medicine research?AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(9), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2018.873
IntemannK. (2020). Understanding the problem of “hype”: Exaggeration, values, and trust in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1–16. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45
30.
IoannidisJ. P. A.KhouryM. J. (2018). Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data. Human Molecular Genetics, 27(R1), R2–R7. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddy065
31.
JensenJ. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
KostickK. M.Blumenthal-BarbyJ. S. (2021). Avoiding “toxic knowledge”: The importance of framing personalized risk information in clinical decision-making. Personalized Medicine, 18(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2020-0174
34.
MaierM.MildeJ.PostS.GüntherL.RuhrmannG.BarkelaB. (2016). Communicating scientific evidence: Scientists,’ journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty. Communications, 41(3), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0010
35.
MarconA. R.BieberM.CaulfieldT. (2018). Representing a “revolution”: How the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine. Genetics in Medicine, 20, 950–956. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.217
36.
NanayakkaraP.HullmanJ. (2020, March 20–21). Toward better communication of uncertainty in science journalism [Conference presentation]. Computation + Journalism Symposium, Boston, MA, USA.
NiederdeppeJ.LeeT.RobbinsR.KimH. K.KresovichA.KirshenblatD.StandridgeK.ClarkeC. E.JensenJ.FowlerE. F. (2014). Content and effects of news stories about uncertain cancer causes and preventive behaviors. Health Communication, 29(4), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.755603
39.
ParensE.MatthewsL.AppelbaumP. S. (2020). Polygenic risk scores, prediction of psychiatric disorders, and the health of all of us. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30185-1
40.
PetersH. P.DunwoodyS.AllgaierJ.LoY.-Y.BrossardD. (2014). Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the “new media” online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?EMBO Reports, 15(7), 749–753. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201438979
41.
PollackH. N. (2003). Uncertain science . . . Uncertain world. Cambridge University Press.
42.
PostS.MaierM. (2016). Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 944–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516645039
43.
RatcliffC. L.JensenJ. D.ChristyK.CrossleyK.KrakowM. (2018). News coverage of cancer research: Does disclosure of scientific uncertainty enhance credibility? In O’HairH. D. (Ed.), Risk and health communication in an evolving media environment (pp. 156–175). Routledge.
44.
RatcliffC. L.WongB.JensenJ. D.KaphingstK. A. (2021). The impact of communicating uncertainty on public responses to precision medicine research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. Online ahead of print. https://doi.10.1093/abm/kaab050
45.
SankarP. L.ParkerL. S. (2017). The Precision Medicine Initiative’s All of Us Research Program: An agenda for research on its ethical, legal, and social issues. Genetics in Medicine, 19(7), 743–750. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.183
46.
SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS.AndrewsA.StukelT. A. (2012). Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: Retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 344, Article d8164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d8164
47.
SlaterM. D. (2013). Content analysis as a foundation for programmatic research in communication. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 85–93.
48.
StarS. L. (1983). Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631283013002002
49.
StockingS. H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23–41). Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
StrykerJ. E. (2002). Reporting medical information: Effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles’ visibility in the news media. Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2002.1102
51.
SumnerP.Vivian-GriffithsS.BoivinJ.WilliamsA.VenetisC. A.DaviesA.OgdenJ.WhelanL.HughesB.DaltonB.BoyF.ChambersC. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. British Medical Journal, 349, Article g7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015
52.
WojcikG. L.GraffM.NishimuraK. K.TaoR.HaesslerJ.GignouxC. R.HighlandH. M.PatelY.SorokinE. P.AveryC. L.BelbinG. M.BienS. A.ChengI.CullinaS.HodonskyC. J.HuY.HuckinsL. M.JeffJ.JusticeA. E.. . . CarlsonC. S. (2019). Genetic analyses of diverse populations improves discovery for complex traits. Nature, 570(7762), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1310-4
53.
WrayN. R.RipkeS.MattheisenM.TrzaskowskiM.ByrneE. M.AbdellaouiA.AdamsM. J.AgerboE.AirT. M.AndlauerT. M. F.BacanuS. A.Bækvad-HansenM.BeekmanA. F. T.BigdeliT. B.BinderE. B.BlackwoodD. R. H.BryoisJ.ButtenschønH. N.Bybjerg-GrauholmJ., . . . Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. (2018). Genome-wide association analyses identify 44 risk variants and refine the genetic architecture of major depression. Nature Genetics, 50(5), 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0090-3
54.
ZehrS. C. (1999). Scientists’ representations of uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 3–21). Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
ZhangY. (2018). Retailing science: Genre hybridization in online science news stories. Text & Talk, 38(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0040
