Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story
Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00160-5
复制
发表时间：
2002-06-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Yukimura, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cooper, CP;Yukimura, D
在许多情况下，医学研究的新闻报道煽动了不合理的乐观或恐惧。医学文献提供了科学界谴责这些误导性报告的档案。但人们对新闻人物如何评判他们知之甚少。这项研究探讨了科学作家对《纽约时报》一篇有争议的报道的反应，这篇报道给数千名癌症患者带来了希望。在美国和加拿大有60多位科学作家。和英国参加了由《纽约时报》文章引发的为期12天的电子邮件讨论。我们分析了其中的255封电子邮件，并对（1）对《纽约时报》报道的正面和负面批评进行了编码。(2)提及该文章的影响，包括制造虚假的希望。(3)造成公众误解的责任归属。（4）提高公众对医学科研新闻理解的建议。参与的科学作家对这篇有争议的文章普遍持否定态度：83%的评论是不利的。此外，样本中的科学作家认识到并关注他们的工作对公众的影响，并承担了医学研究新闻报道所造成的虚假希望的最大责任。终于来了被访者提出的改善公众对医学研究新闻认识的建议与科学界的建议相若。因此。科学家和科学作家认为医学研究的新闻报道可以改进，这两者之间存在一些共同点。(C)2002爱思唯尔科技有限公司。保留所有权利。
In numerous incidences, the news coverage of medical research has incited unjustified optimism or fear. The medical literature provides an archive of the scientific community's condemnation of these misleading reports. but little is known about how they are judged by newsmakers. This studs explored science writers' reactions to a controversial New York Times story that inflated the hopes of thousands of cancer patients. More than 60 science writers in the US Canada. and Great Britain participated in a 12-day email discussion triggered by the Times article. We analyzed 255 of these email postings and coded (1) positive and negative critiques of the Times story. (2) references to the article's repercussions including the creation of false hope. (3) attributions of responsibility for the resulting public misunderstanding. and (4) suggestions to improve the public's comprehension of medical research news. The participating science writers generally responded negatively to the controversial article: 83% of the critiques were unfavorable. In addition, the science writers in the sample were cognizant and concerned about the impact of their work on the public, and accepted the largest share of the responsibility for the false hope created by the news coverage of medical research. Finally. the suggestions offered by respondents to improve the public's understanding of medical research news were similar to those proposed by the scientific community. Thus. some commonality exists between how scientists and science writers believe the news coverage of medical research could be improved. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.