The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) the quality of media reports (newspapers, television and public radio) of genetic discoveries with medical relevance and (2) factors related to the completeness and balance of the stories. METHODS: Analysis of the accuracy, balance, and completeness of 228 media stories reporting 24 genetic discoveries between 1996 and 2000 using a previously validated instrument. RESULTS: Although usually accurate, the stories contained only 45.5 +/- 13.8% (mean +/- SD) of relevant items. Stories appearing on television and stories reporting discoveries of genes for rare diseases were the least complete. Stories in non-US English-speaking newspapers included more content items per word than US stories. Less balanced stories exaggerated the benefits of discoveries, ignored possible risks, and did not present a range of expert opinion. Scientists were sometimes the source of exaggeration. CONCLUSIONS: To increase the quality of media reports about genetic discoveries, stories should include more relevant items and be written by journalists skilled in science writing. Scientists will have to resist the tendency to exaggerate. These conclusions may apply to media stories of other discoveries as well.

Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: toward an ethic of trust in science journalism.

PURPOSE: To describe the relationship between scientists and science writers and their experiences with media reporting of genetic discoveries. METHODS: This study included individual interviews with 15 scientists who specialize in genetics and 22 science writers who have covered their stories and a qualitative analysis of the data. RESULTS: Scientists and science writers place an equally high priority on accuracy of media reports. They agree on what makes genetics stories newsworthy and the particular challenges in reporting genetic discoveries (i.e., poor public understanding of genetics, the association of genetics with eugenics, and the lack of immediately apparent applications of genetic discoveries to human health). The relationship between scientists and bona fide science writers is largely positive. Scientists tend to trust, respect, and be receptive to science writers. Both scientists and science writers acknowledge that trust is an essential component of a good interview. Science writers report a fair degree of autonomy with respect to the relationship they have with their editors. CONCLUSION: To the degree that trust facilitates the access that science writers have to scientists, as well as higher quality interviews between scientists and science writers, trust might also contribute to higher quality media reporting. Therefore, scientists and science writers have an ethical obligation to foster trusting relationships with each other. Future research should systematically explore ways to cultivate such relationships and assess their impact on the quality of science journalism.

Houseofficers' reactions to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome.

After the announcement that sequencing of the human genome was nearly complete, media coverage was extensive. In light of ample evidence that the media are a primary source of health and science information, even for health professionals, media portrayals are often inaccurate or misleading, and discoveries that emanate from sequencing the human genome are likely to influence future health care, it is important to assess physicians' interpretations of media coverage about the human genome announcement. This paper describes the reactions of a sample of new physicians in the United States to this announcement, as well as the content of the stories they read or heard. Semi-structured surveys were distributed to all incoming houseofficers during Orientation at one major academic medical center. Eighty-one percent of 190 houseofficers returned a survey; 123 completed surveys were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents thought the media message was only positive and 21% thought it was negative or mixed. Participants who reported radio as their media source were less likely to recall positive messages (p<0.05). Sixty-five percent and 76%, respectively, had positive perceptions of the impact of the accomplishment on people and on the medical profession. Overall, 48% were enthusiastic and 52% were guarded about the accomplishment. Enthusiasm was related to being an adult primary care houseofficer (p=0.07) or to having heard about it on television or in the newspaper (p<0.05). Of the 36 stories analyzed, newspaper and television reports focused more on medical implications and radio reports focused more on ethical issues. The degree of enthusiasm about the accomplishment reflects the content of the media coverage, and, at least for adult primary care houseofficers, probably reflects the increasing relevance of genetic discoveries to medical practice. Since physicians obtain much of their health and science information from the media, they can play an instrumental role in helping their patients interpret media coverage of advances in genetics and their impact on health care. However, this will require that physicians develop an appreciation of the newsmaking process, and how subtle interactions between politics, the media and science influence the "framing" of media coverage.

Mapping the human genome: an assessment of media coverage and public reaction.

PURPOSE: To assess public reactions to the June 26, 2000, announcement that scientists had nearly finished mapping the human genome. METHODS: We conducted a random-digit telephone survey of 407 Maryland residents as well as a content analysis of 55 relevant media reports. RESULTS: African Americans were more likely than Caucasians to report a negative reaction (P < 0.001) to the genome announcement. Overall, privacy/discrimination (16%) and human cloning (14%) were the most commonly mentioned concerns regarding the impact of the genome mapping. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for continued public discourse, including through the media, to address concerns regarding the Human Genome Project.