Skip to main content Accessibility help

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
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T07:16:27.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - How the media represent science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2010

Nicholas Russell
Nicholas Russell
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Get access

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. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Communicating Science
Professional, Popular, Literary
 , pp. 172 - 189
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Augenbraun, E. (2005). Weapon of mass attraction. Nature, 433, 27 January, 357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, M.Durant, J.Ragnarsdottir, A. and Rudolfsdottir, A. (1995). Science and Technology in the British Press 1946–1990. London: Wellcome Trust Grant Report.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Brown, B. (2003). Where's the next Winston?The Guardian, Media Section, 2 June, 2.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coward, R. (2005). Back to nature. The Guardian, Media Section, 9 May, 6–7.Google Scholar
Cozens, C. (2003). Tomorrow's World now yesterday's news. The Guardian, 4 January, 7.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hansen, A. (1994). Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1992). Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input. Communications, 17, 365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, I. (2000). Is that Frank – or Frankenstein?The Guardian, Education Section, 19 September, 14–15.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Monbiot, G. (2002). Planet of the fakes. The Guardian, 17 December, 13.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science. 2nd edition. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rajan, L. (1995). Research into the popularization of science by scientists and engineers at Imperial College. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College London.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • How the media represent science
  • Nicholas Russell, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
  • Book: Communicating Science
  • Online publication: 02 December 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803918.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • How the media represent science
  • Nicholas Russell, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
  • Book: Communicating Science
  • Online publication: 02 December 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803918.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • How the media represent science
  • Nicholas Russell, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
  • Book: Communicating Science
  • Online publication: 02 December 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803918.015
Available formats
×