Portrayal of psychiatric genetics in Australian print news media, 1996-2009

Scientific clickbait: Examining media coverage and readability in genome-wide association research

In the present study, we analyzed a large corpus of English-language online media articles covering genome-wide association studies (GWAS), exemplifying the use of computational methods to study science communication in biological sciences. We analyzed trends in media coverage, readability, themes, and mentions of ethical and social issues, in over 5,000 websites published from 2005 to 2018 from 3,555 GWAS publications on 1,943 different traits, identified via GWAS Catalog using a text-mining approach to inform the discussion about genetic literacy and media coverage. We found that 22.9% of GWAS papers received media attention but most were described in language too complex to be understood by the public. Ethical issues are rarely mentioned and mentions of translation are increasing over time. We predicted media attention based on year of publication, number of genetic associations identified, study sample size, and journal impact factor, using a regression model (r2 = 38.7%). We found that chronotype, educational attainment, alcohol and coffee consumption, sexual orientation, tanning, and hair color received substantially more attention than predicted by the regression model. We also evaluated the prevalence of the clickbait "one gene, one disease" headlines (e.g., "Scientists Say They've Found Gene That Causes Breast Cancer") and found that it is declining. In sum, online media coverage of GWAS should be more accessible, introduce more modern genetics terms, and when appropriate, ELSI should be mentioned. Science communication research can benefit from big data and text-mining techniques which allow us to study trends and changes in coverage trends across thousands of media outlets. Results can be explored interactively in a website we have built for this manuscript: https://jjmorosoli.shinyapps.io/newas/.

Ocular gene transfer in the spotlight: implications of newspaper content for clinical communications

BACKGROUND

Ocular gene transfer clinical trials are raising hopes for blindness treatments and attracting media attention. News media provide an accessible health information source for patients and the public, but are often criticized for overemphasizing benefits and underplaying risks of novel biomedical interventions. Overly optimistic portrayals of unproven interventions may influence public and patient expectations; the latter may cause patients to downplay risks and over-emphasize benefits, with implications for informed consent for clinical trials. We analyze the news media communications landscape about ocular gene transfer and make recommendations for improving communications between clinicians and potential trial participants in light of media coverage.

METHODS

We analyzed leading newspaper articles about ocular gene transfer (1990-2012) from United States (n = 55), Canada (n = 26), and United Kingdom (n = 77) from Factiva and Canadian Newsstand databases using pre-defined coding categories. We evaluated the content of newspaper articles about ocular gene transfer for hereditary retinopathies, exploring representations of framing techniques, research design, risks/benefits, and translational timelines.

RESULTS

The dominant frame in 61% of stories was a celebration of progress, followed by human-interest in 30% of stories. Missing from the positive frames were explanations of research design; articles conflated clinical research with treatment. Conflicts-of-interest and funding sources were similarly omitted. Attention was directed to the benefits of gene transfer, while risks were only reported in 43% of articles. A range of visual outcomes was described from slowing vision loss to cure, but the latter was the most frequently represented even though it is clinically infeasible. Despite the prominence of visual benefit portrayals, 87% of the articles failed to provide timelines for the commencement of clinical trials or for clinical implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis confirms that despite many initiatives to improve media communications about experimental biotechnologies, media coverage remains overly optimistic and omits important information. In light of these findings, our recommendations focus on the need for clinicians account for media coverage in their communications with patients, especially in the context of clinical trial enrolment. The development of evidence-based communication strategies will facilitate informed consent and promote the ethical translation of this biotechnology.