Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Chapter
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: December 2010

13 - How the media represent science

Export citation
Summary

Professor Janet Docherty was smart, personable, articulate and running an important cell biology research group investigating the behaviour of cell lines taken from mouse cancers. She had no trouble getting research grants; she was a star at conferences, and eligible for election to the Royal Society. The organizations funding her and her university were keen to publicize her work and Janet herself was perfectly willing to do all that she could in talking to the media.

The press liaison offices at her university and at a leading research charity tried to build news stories round her best papers. Press releases were carefully drafted; press conferences organized at prestigious London venues, the press officers and Janet herself were careful to get to know the leading science and health correspondents personally and always to respond to requests from journalists for interview. Janet was the very model of a modern media-savvy professor and her labours and those of her press officers were rewarded, her work always attracted interest and a certain amount of low key coverage. But media attention did not reflect her professional status as a leading cancer researcher.

Then, one day in a faraway corporate laboratory in a rustbelt American city a small team announced a breakthrough in the treatment of lung cancer, a drug which might stop one of the most intractable cancers of all. It worked in rodents, but still had to go through the whole series of clinical trials in humans. Announcing it at this stage was a huge risk for the pharmaceutical company concerned but it was small, in need of more investment, and generated the publicity to attract it. […]

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Communicating Science
  • Online ISBN: 9780511803918
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803918
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×
Bibliography
Augenbraun, E. (2005). Weapon of mass attraction. Nature, 433, 27 January, 357.
Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 47–65.
Bauer, M.Durant, J.Ragnarsdottir, A. and Rudolfsdottir, A. (1995). Science and Technology in the British Press 1946–1990. London: Wellcome Trust Grant Report.
Bronsdon, S. (1998). Attitudes of academic staff to the dissemination of science in the media. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College London.
Brown, B. (2003). … the answer is five. The Guardian, Media Section, 19 May, 2–3.
Brown, B. (2003). Where's the next Winston?The Guardian, Media Section, 2 June, 2.
Chilvers, C. A. J. (2003). The dilemmas of seditious men: the Crowther-Hessen correspondence in the 1930s. British Journal for the History of Science, 36, 417–35.
Cook, G.Robbins, P. T. and Pieri, E. (2006). Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 5–29.
Coward, R. (2005). Back to nature. The Guardian, Media Section, 9 May, 6–7.
Cozens, C. (2003). Tomorrow's World now yesterday's news. The Guardian, 4 January, 7.
Dingwall, R. and Aldridge, M. (2006). Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 131–52.
Friedman, S.Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L. (eds.) (1986). Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Hansen, A. (1994). Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 111–34.
Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1992). Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input. Communications, 17, 365–77.
Hargreaves, I. (2000). Is that Frank – or Frankenstein?The Guardian, Education Section, 19 September, 14–15.
Hargreaves, I.Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003). Towards a Better Map. Science, the Public and the Media. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
Herman, D. (2003). Thought crime. The Guardian, Weekend Review, 1 November, 18–19.
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–39.
King, D. (2002). Inaugural Graduate School of Engineering and Physical Sciences lecture. November, Imperial College London.
Mabey, R. (2003). Nature's voyeurs. The Guardian, Weekend Review, 15 March, 4–6.
Monbiot, G. (2002). Planet of the fakes. The Guardian, 17 December, 13.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science. 2nd edition. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Rajan, L. (1995). Research into the popularization of science by scientists and engineers at Imperial College. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College London.
Cancel
Confirm
×