Prof. Timothy Caulfield

Majority of newspaper articles do accurately convey genetic research

Scientists often suggest that media engage in "geno-hype", but Health Law Institute researchers point out it’s not as common as generally thought.

Are you getting the straight goods from your newspaper on what’s happening in the world of genetic research? Two University of Alberta researchers say you are, but most stories that appear don’t mention the costs or risks of new research.

Health Law Institute researchers Tania Bubela and Timothy Caulfield say their research suggests that the majority of newspaper articles accurately convey the results of and reflect the claims made in scientific journal articles.

"Our study also highlights an overemphasis on benefits and under-representation of risks in both scientific and newspaper articles," says Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy and Research Director at the Health Law Institute.

In their paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), entitled Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers, the researchers point out that the public gets most of its information about genetic research from the media. Commentators, such as scientists and legal academics, often suggest that media representations may involve exaggeration called "geno-hype." To find out whether that was true, the researchers examined the accuracy and nature of media coverage of genetic research, by reviewing the reporting of single-gene discoveries and associated technologies in major daily newspapers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia.

The researchers examined 627 newspaper articles reporting on 111 papers published in 24 scientific and medical journals. Only 11 percent of the newspaper articles were categorized as having moderately to highly exaggerated claims; the majority were categorized as having no claims (63 percent) or slightly exaggerated claims (26 percent). Only 15 percent of the newspaper articles and 5 percent of the scientific journal articles discussed costs or risks, whereas 97 percent of the newspaper articles and 98 percent of the scientific journal articles discussed the likelihood of benefits of the research.

The researchers identified articles about gene discoveries and associated technologies hosted on the Dow Jones Interactive and Canadian NewsDisk databases from January 1995 to June 2001. Then, they compared the contents, claims and conclusions of the scientific journal article with those of the associated newspaper article.

Then Caulfield and Dr. Bubela, now a Faculty of Business professor at the U of A, categorized the newspaper articles into three categories: moderately to highly exaggerated claims, slightly exaggerated claims or no exaggerated claims. The newspaper articles were then assigned according to: attention structure (positioning in the newspaper and length of the article), authorship, research topic, source of information other than the scientific paper, type and likelihood of risks and benefits, discussion of controversy, valuation tone (positive or negative), framing (e.g., description of research, celebration of progress, report of economic prospects or ethical perspective), technical accuracy (either omissions or errors that changed the description of the methods or interpretation of the results) and use of metaphors.

In a CMAJ commentary on the work, Celeste Condit, from the Department of Speech Communication, University of Georgia, said medical researchers trying to communicate with the public about health should assume that what they say in their scientific publications may make its way into the public sphere and that press coverage may treat speculative "discussion" sections as fact.

Researchers should talk to reporters, she said. The public, who fund research with their hard-earned tax dollars, and patients, who indirectly fund research by purchasing products developed by private industry, have a right to know about that research, and news reporters are a major conduit, she contended.

For further information, please contact Prof. Timothy Caulfield using the Email contact form or by phone at 780-492-8358