` kpk @@@ @@@@;k`k EN DB kP     & ./ ? O   u` Z7   nyenPardo, Rafael Calvo, Flix 2002TMAttitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysisn&Public Understanding of Science11 Aprild155-195 F?science communication europe Eurobarometer attitudR Achter2001 Achter2002a Achter2004 Adley2001c Akiyama1995r Allansdottir2000w Allum1999r Allum2000a Allum2004c Alora1995b Amos1997mi Amos1998ah Amos1998bzAnderlik2001'Anderson2002 Antonucci1999c Asada1995Atkinson1992c Azariah1995c Azariah1995 Bader1990f Barns1997q Barns19972 Barns2000$ Bates2002cc Bates2004  Bates2005M Bates2005_ Bateson1999w Bauer1999r Bauer2000 Bauer2002 Beale2001N Bendle2002A Bernhardt2000 Bernhardt2002 Bernhardt2002 Bernhardt2003 Bernhardt2003 Bevan2005r Bonfadelli20000c Boost1995r Boy2000 Brookey2001 Brower19981  Bubela2004 Bucchi2002 Bucchi2004 Calvo2002 Carter20011= Cassels20037 Caulfield2000x Caulfield2000a  Caulfield2004 Caulfield20040 Ceccarelli2004cChatwachirawong1995x Cho2000aa Clarke19999 Clarke20000( Clarke200204 Clarke20033 Cohen1998= Cole20030E Condit1998  Condit1999a Condit1999b` Condit2001 Condit2001 Condit2002a$ Condit2002c Condit2004  Condit20043 Condit20044  Condit2004 Condit2005F Conrad1996 Conrad1997 Conrad1999+ Conrad2001; Conrad2001p Corning1998 Corning1999m Cox1999 Craig2000 Cunningham1998bCunningham-Burley1997iCunningham-Burley1998ahCunningham-Burley1998beCunningham-Burley1999q Davis1997f Davison19972 Davison2000r de Cheveigne2000@ DeAngelis2000 Dijck1998 Dimopoulos2003Dingwall1999(Dingwall2002 Doble1995 Dubriwny2004w Durant19999r Durant20000 Durham20010v Einsiedel2000 Fine19988rFjaestad200029Fleising2001| Fox2002 Frewer1994s Frewer1997 Frewer1998 Frewer1999/ Furr2002$Galloway2002cw Gaskell1999r Gaskell2000A Geller20000 Geller2002 Geller20020 Geller20030 Geller2003 George2001] Gilbert2002} Gill1998$ Givens2002cx Gold2000a Gollust2002PGoodacre2005Gottweis2002[ Griffiths1999r Gutteling2000l Hallowell1998J Hamer1993r Hampel20000: Hargreaves2003 Harris20010 Harris2004 Harris200443 Harris20044$ Haynie2002c Hedderley1999Hedgecoe2000.Hedgecoe2001Hedgecoe2004n Heeren198681Hellsten2004I Henderson1999 Henderson2000 Henderson2000 Hilgartner1995 Hobson20010AHoltzman2000hHoltzman20022Holtzman20022Holtzman20030Holtzman20033B Hopkins1998s Howard1997 Howard1998 Howard1999J Hu19939J Hu1993n Hubbard1999= Hughes20033 Hull20020 Jackson1999r Jelsoe20000r Jesuino2000 Johnson1995$ Jordan2002c Karaliukas2003hc Kato1995rc Kaushik1995Q Kay1998R Kay2000S Keller1995T Keller2000b Kerr1997i Kerr1998ah Kerr1998be Kerr1999mZ Kitcher2001I Kitzinger1999> Klein1991r Kohring2000> Koren1991 Koulaidis2003< Kravitz19923 Krieger2004 Kristjanson2001r Kronberger20000p Lamias19988 Lauer2002aac Leavitt1995Leftwich2002P Levitt2005: Lewis2003YLewontin1974= Lexchin2003D Lindee1995& Lorenz2003 Lynch2004 Lynch2005 Maasen2000c Macer1995c Macer1995u Macer2000JMagnuson1993 Maguire2000) Maienschein2001* Maienschein2001 Makgoba2002; Markens2001_ Martin19999= McCormack2003 McGuire2000mMcKellin19998 Melzer2002 Michael2001r Midden20002= Mintzes2003LMitchell2000Moligner1998 Molitor1993^ Moore2001 Morris2001AMountcastle-Shah2000Mountcastle-Shah2003A Mulle2000l Murton19988 Nelkin1994D Nelkin1995 Nelkin2001Neresini2002 Nerlich1999 Nerlich2000( Nerlich20024 Nerlich20031 Nerlich2004X Neumann-Held1998U Neumann-Held2002u Ng20000r Nielsen2000Nordgren2003t Oda2000E Ofulue1998c Ong1995 Otten1998V Oyama1985W Oyama2000 Pardo2002 Parrott20043 Parrott2004 Parsons1992J Pattatucci1993 Pergament1998HPetersen1999,Petersen2001 Poirot2004 Priest2000 Priest2001r Przestalski2000R2000 Ramsey2001? Ransohoff2001? Ransohoff2001 Rapp1988  Ratner2004Richards1996}Richards1998 Rodgers2002 Rodgers2003 Rodgers2003 Rose2003 Rosner1995 Rothman1998z Rothstein2001r Rusanen2000r Sakellaris20000fSchibeci1997qSchibeci19972Schibeci2000o Scotch19818Sefcovic2002a2 Shaw20000E Sheedy1998K Sheedy2000 Shepard1994sShepherd1997Shepherd1998Shepherd19999# Sherry20043 Silk20040p Singer1998 Singer1999 Smart2003t Soares2000oSorenson1981nSorenson1986: Speers20032cSrinives1995n$Stables2002ccl Statham1998y Steele2000[Sterelny1999g Stockdale1999a Sturgis2004o Swazey19818A Tambor20000 Tambor2002 Tambor2003- Tambor2003%Ten Eyck2003-Ten Have2001r Torgersen2000c Tsuzuki1995O Turner2002r Twardowski20000~ Vines1997r Wagner20002 Wald19999FWeinberg1996d Weiner2001P Weiner2005Weingart2000n Wertz1986$ West2002c White2001 Wilfond2002< Wilkes1992 Wilkes2001 Willard2002% Williment2003Withnall2001\ Wolpert1998 Zimmerman19998 Zimmern2002998 Zimmern2002 Zimmern2002998 Zimmern2002 Zimmern20028 Zimmern2002   AuthorsDJournals LKeywords ,                                 a, Celeste Condit A., Condit C.A.M.L, Pattatucci Achter, P Achter, P. J. Adley, C. C. Akiyama, S.Allansdottir, A. Allum, N. Allum, N. C. Alora, A. T.AML., Pattatucci Amos, A.Anderlik, M. R. Anderson, A. Antonucci, T. Asada, Y. Atkinson, P. Azariah, H. Azariah, J. Bader, R. G. Barns, I Barns, I. Barns, Ian Bates, B. R.Bateson, Patrick P G Bauer, M. Bauer, M. W. Beale, B Beatty, J. Bendle, M.FBernhardt, B. A. Bevan, J. L.Biagioli, MarioBonfadelli, H. Boost, M. V. Boy, D. Brookey, R.A Brower, S. T. Bubela, T. M.Bubela, Tania M Bucchi, M. Calvo, Flix Carter, S Cassels, Alan Caulfield, T.Caulfield, T. A.Caulfield, Timothy ACeccarelli, LeahChatwachirawong, P. Cho, M. K. Clarke, D Clarke, D. D. Clarke, DD Cohen, L Cole, Carol Condit, C. A. Condit, C. M. Condit, C.MCondit, CelesteCondit, Celeste M. Conrad, P Conrad, P. Conrad, Peter Corning, A.Corning, A. D. Cox, S.M Craig, D. A.Cunningham, J. D.Cunningham-Burley, SCunningham-Burley, S.CunninghamBurley, S.Cuuningham-Burley, S Davis, A Davison, A.Davison, Aidande Cheveigne, S.DeAngelis, Catherine, D. Dijck, J.VDimopoulos, K. Dingwall, R Dingwall, R. Doble, J Dubriwny, T. Durant, J. Durham, MEinsiedel, E. F. Fine, B.A Fjaestad, B. Fleising, U. Fox, J. L. Frewer, L. J Frewer, L. J.Furr, L. Allen Galloway, R. Gaskell, G. Geller, G. George, S. A.Gilbert, Scott F Gill, M. Givens, S. B. Gold, E. R.Gollust, S. E. Goodacre, J. Gottweis, H. Green, J. M.Griffiths, Paul EGrunwald, ArminGutmann, MathiasGutteling, J. M. Hallowell, N Hallowell, N. Hamer DH Hamer, D.H Hamer, D.H. Hampel, J.Hargreaves, Ian Harris, R Harris, T. M.Harris, T. M.. Haynie, C. K. Hedderley, D. Hedgecoe, A.Hedgecoe, A. M.Hedgecoe, A.M. Heeren, T. C.Hellsten, IinaHenderson, B. J.Henderson, B.J Henderson, L.Hilgartner, Stephen Hobson, JHoltzman, N. A.Hopkins, Patrick D. Howard, C.Hu SHu, N Hu, N.Hu, S Hu, S. Hubbard, R.Hughes, Merrilee A. Hull, S. C. Jackson, F. Jelsoe, E.Jesuino, J. C. Johnson, T.R Jordan, J. W. JR, Krieger K, Silk K., SilkKaraliukas, R. Kato, Y. Kaushik, V. Kay, Lily E.Keller, Evelyn Fox Kerr, A Kerr, A. Kitcher, P Kitzinger, J. Klein, N. Kohring, M.  L Agriculture and Human Values("American Journal of Human GeneticsAmerican Literature Annals of Surgical Oncology0,Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Argumentation and Advocacy$ Biochemical Society Transactions(%Birth Defects-Original Article SeriesBMJBritish Medical Journal($Canadian Medical Association Journal(%Canadian Medical Association. Journal,&Critical Studies in Mass Communication$Culture Medicine and Psychiatry0+Dissertation, Athens, University of Georgia0+Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Effective Clinical Practice($European Journal of Oncology Nursing Gene TherapyGenetics in MedicineGenetics Testing HealthHealth CommunicationHuman Gene TherapyHuman Mutation Hypatia40Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association Journal of Biolaw & Business$ Journal of Communication Inquiry$Journal of Genetic Counselling(%Journal of Health and Social Behavior$Journal of Health Communication,&Journal of Popular Film and Television0+Journal of the American Medical Association$!Journal of the History of Biology,)Journalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyJournalism Quarterly McGill LawMed Anthropol QuarterlyMedia Psychology(%Medicine , Health Care and Philosophy($Medicine, Health Care and PhilosophyMetaphoric Symbol0-Michigan State University Press, East LansingMolecular Therapy NatureNature BiotechnologyNature ReviewsNature Reviews GeneticsNature Reviews: GeneticsNew Genetics and SocietyNew Ideas in Psychology(#Perseptives in Biology and MedicinePerspect Soc ProblemsPublic Opinion Quarterly$Public Understanding of Science Quarterly Journal of SpeechSci Tech Hum Values ScienceScience as CultureScience CommunicationScience Education$!Science Technology & Human Values("Science, Technology & Human ValuesSocial ProblemsSocial Science & MedicineSocial SemioticsSociological Review Sociology of Health & Illness$Sociology of Health and IllnessTechnology in Society The Hastings Center Report("Theoretical Medicine and BioethicsTrends in Biotechnology VaccineWritten Communication                         , breast cancer chromosomePKcloning genes genetic determinism embryology bioethics human genome project coverage0-development evolution evolutionary psychologyLGdevelopmental psychobiology developmental systems theory nature/nurturedevelopmental systemsHDdevelopmental systems constructionism genes classical molecular geneD@developmental systems ontogeny constructionism information genes documentaryfall fiction gay gene<8gene bioethics heredity innateness science communicationgene information\Ygenes genetic determinism genetic information developmental biology developmental systems`]genes genetic programs genetic information development metaphor rhetoric sociology of science@;genes information coding molecular biology molecularizationDAgenes interactionism developmental systems oyama norm of reaction homosexuality linkagemale homosexualitymale sexual orientation markers mastectomymedianewspresspublic understanding$ public understanding of genetics reportingrise scienceD?science communication europe Eurobarometer attitudes to science0-science communication gene genetics metaphors85science communication gene genetics metaphors cloningLFscience communication gene genetics metaphors newspapers hype genohype$science communication genetics$science communication metaphortestsHBUnit of Selection, Variance, Nature of Genes developmental systemsUS and British pressxq28] . 2211-2220f$://000182313300017LEGeller, G. Tambor, E. S. Bernhardt, B. A. Rodgers, J. Holtzman, N. A.ZSHouseofficers' reactions to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome Social Science & Medicine60Times Cited: 2 Cited Reference Count: 49 Article D >After the announcement that sequencing of the human genome was nearly complete, media coverage was extensive. In light of ample evidence that the media are a primary source of health and science information, even for health professionals, media portrayals are often inaccurate or misleading, and discoveries that emanate from sequencing the human genome are likely to influence future health care, it is important to assess physicians interpretations of media coverage about the human genome announcement. This paper describes the reactions of a sample of ne physicians in the United States to this announcement. as well as the content of the stories they read or heard. Semi-structured surveys were distributed to all incoming houseofficers during Orientation at one major academic medical center. Eighty-one percent of 190 houseofficers returned a survey: 123 completed survey's were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents thought the media message was only positive and 21% thought it was negative or mixed. Participants who reported radio as their media source were less likely to recall positive messages (p < 0.05). Sixty-five percent and 76%, respectively, had positive perceptions of the impact of the accomplishment on people and on the medical profession. Overall, 48% were enthusiastic and 52% were guarded about the accomplishment, Enthusiasm was related to being an adult primary care houseofficer (p = 0.07) or to having heard about it on television or in the newspaper (p < 0.05). Of the 36 stories analyzed. newspaper and television reports focused more on medical implications and radio reports focused more on ethical issues. The degree of enthusiasm about the accomplishment reflects the content of the media coverage, and, at least for adult primary care houseofficers, probably reflects the increasing relevance of genetic discoveries to medical practice. Since physicians obtain much of their health and science information from the media. they can play an instrumental role in helping their patients interpret media coverage of advances in genetics and their impact on health care. However, this will require that physicians develop an appreciation of the newsmaking process. and how subtle interactions between politics, the media and science influence the "framing" of media coverage. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.'zsJohns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Off Commun & Publ Affairs, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Phoebe Berman Bioeth Inst, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Geller, G, Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Off Commun & Publ Affairs, 550 N Broadway,Suite 511, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. May 20035610ISI:000182313300017176-183$://000165668000005t George, S. A.\VNot exactly "of woman born" - Procreation and creation in recent science fiction films,&Journal of Popular Film and Television Win 2001284ISI:000165668000005Gilbert, Scott F 2002pjGenetic Determinism: The battle between scientific data and social image in contemporary molecular biology :4Grunwald, Armin Gutmann, Mathias Neumann-Held, Eva MPJOn Human Nature: Anthropological, Biological and Philosophical Foundations Berlin Springer121-140 `Ygenes genetic determinism genetic information developmental biology developmental systems&YP>ZhibT~SRQ^BT.293-301$://0000835279000151&Henderson, B. J. Maguire, B. T.4.Three lay mental models of disease inheritance Social Science & MedicineS Jan 2000502ISI:000083527900015"Henderson, B.J McGuire, B.T 2000Hilgartner, Stephen 1995D>Biomolecular Databases: New Communication Regimes for Biology?Science Communicationt172a240-2632During the past two decades, computerized biomolecular databases have rapidly expanded, and have been prominently integrated into laboratory work in biological sciences. This paper offers an exploratory look the potential significance of these databases as novel tools for scientific communication. The paper develops the concept of a science communication regimea sociotechnical system that constitutes a particular means of scientific communication, such as the scientific journal. This concept is then used to examine biomolecular databases and their potential implications for scientific institutions and practices. The field of genome research provides empirical examples.Hopkins, Patrick D.t 1998LFBad copies: how popular media represent cloning as an ethical problem. The Hastings Center Report28 6-13Hubbard, R. Wald, E. 1999Exploding the gene mythe Boston: Beacon press181-191$://000083872000005e Jackson, F.A<6African-American responses to the Human Genome Project&Public Understanding of Science Jul 19998n3iISI:000083872000005 Kay, Lily E. 1998LEIn the Beginning Was the Word?: The Genetic Code and the Book of Lifei Biagioli, Mario The Science Studies Reader New York  Routledgen 224-33 Kay, Lily E. 2000@:Who Wrote the Book of Life : A History of the Genetic Code  Palo Alto Stanford University PressB;genes information coding molecular biology molecularizationtKeller, Evelyn Fox 1995>7Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth Century Biology New York Columbia University Pressd]genes genetic programs genetic information development metaphor rhetoric sociology of scienceSKeller, Evelyn Fox 2000The Century of the Geneh Cambridge, Mass.  MIT Pressgene information.'Kerr, A. Cunningham-Burley, S. Amos, A. 1997<6The new genetics: Professionals' discursive boundariesSociological Review452279-303 MayrISI:A1997WY69000006`$://A1997WY69000006`.'Kerr, A. Cunningham-Burley, S. Amos, A. 1998a{<5The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise\&Public Understanding of Science710 41-60i JanISI:000071914300006{$://000071914300006.'Kerr, A. Cunningham-Burley, S. Amos, A. 1998b}VPDrawing the line: an analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics&Public Understanding of Science.7n2113-133z AprISI:000073513400002{$://000073513400002e Kitcher, P 2001JDBattling the undead: How (and how not) to resist genetic determinism B%R. Singh K. Krimbas D. Paul J. BeattyqThinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (Festchrifft for Richard Lewontin)  Cambridge Cambridge University Press396-414HAgenes interactionism developmental systems oyama norm of reactionKoren, G. Klein, N. 1991NGBias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research.e60Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 266c 1824-1826hR  Leftwich, G.M 2002HBScience and the humanities: the case for state humanities councilsTechnology in Society24523-530 67-79$://000226318900004("Levitt, M. Weiner, K. Goodacre, J.6/Gene Week: a novel way of consulting the publicg&Public Understanding of Science  Jand 2005141ISI:000226318900004 Lewontin, RL 197481The analysis of variance & the analysis of causes("American Journal of Human Genetics26400-411l ajp TRM EBHBUnit of Selection, Variance, Nature of Genes developmental systems Lorenz, D. R.3 2003<5Behavioral genetics: Scientific and social acceptance "Journal of Biolaw & Business6m2o 30-39yISI:000184237900007e Abstract only*#Human behavioral genetics can be broadly defined at the attempt to characterize and define genetic or hereditary basis for human behavior. Examination of the history of these scientific enterprises reveals episodes of controversy, and an apparent distinction between scientific and social acceptance of the genetic nature of such complex behaviors. This essay will review the history and methodology of behavioral genetics research, including a more detailed look at case histories involving behavioral genetic research for aggressive behavior and alcoholism. It includes a discussion of the scientific versus social qualities of the acceptance of behavioral genetics research, a well as the development of a general model for scientific acceptance involving the researchers, the scientific literature, the scientific per group, the mainstream media, and the public at large. From this model follows a discussion of the means and complications by which behavioral genetics research may be accepted by society, and an analysis of how future might be conducted.tArticlel$://000184237900007o'yBoston Univ, Program Bioinformat, Boston, MA 02215 USA LORENZ, DR, BOSTON UNIV, PROGRAM BIOINFORMAT, BOSTON, MA 02215 USAMaasen, S Weingart, Pr 2000.'Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledgen New York  Routledge$science communication metaphor \ b"<nd~rO-%T 31-36$://000175473400006 LETambor, E. S. Bernhardt, B. A. Rodgers, J. Holtzman, N. A. Geller, G.TMMapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reactionGenetics in Medicine60Times Cited: 6 Cited Reference Count: 24 ArticlePurpose: To assess public reactions to the June 26, 2000, announcement that scientists had nearly finished mapping the human genome. Methods: We conducted a random-digit telephone survey of 407 Maryland residents as well as a content analysis of 55 relevant media reports. Results: African Americans were more likely than Caucasians to report a negative reaction (P < 0.001) to the genome announcement. Overall, privacy/discrimination (16%) and human cloning (14%) were the most commonly mentioned concerns regarding the impact of the genome mapping. Conclusions: These findings highlight the need for continued public discourse, including through the media, to address concerns regarding the Human Genome Project.'Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Hyg & Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. Johns Hopkins Sch Med, Dept Pediat, Baltimore, MD USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Inst Med Genet, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Off Commun & Publ Affairs, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Phoebe Berman Bioeth Inst, Baltimore, MD USA. Geller, G, Johns Hopkins Med Inst, 550 N Broadway,Suite 511, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA.Jan-Feb 200241ISI:000175473400006129-152$://000186830000002$Ten Eyck, T. A. Williment, M.|vThe national media and things genetic - Coverage in the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001)Science Communicationi60Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 64 ArticleVOIssues related to genetics and genetic technology have gained a great deal of attention from researchers, policy makers, the press, and even some consumers. This article focuses on how one of these actors-the U.S. elite press-has developed a discourse around these issues. This discussion centers on the framing of articles, the sources used by reporters, and the differences between genetics as they relate to food and to medicine. Over 2,700 articles from the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001) have been analyzed. It is found that scientists and medical issues were much more likely to be framed as progressive than were articles on food or ones in which government officials were quoted. In addition, a more in-depth analysis of articles pertaining to protests and demonstrations between 2000 and 2001 is presented.'Michigan State Univ, Dept Sociol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. Ten Eyck, TA, Michigan State Univ, Dept Sociol, 316 Berkey Hall, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. Dec 2003252ISI:000186830000002Ten Have, Henk, A.M.J. 20016/Genetics and culture: The geneticization thesis ,%Medicine , Health Care and Philosophye4n295-304t Turner, S.S 2002pjJurassic Park Technology in the Bioinformatics Economy: how cloning narratives negotiate the telos of DNA.American Literature\74887-909lVines, G 1997&Genetics: let the public decideBritish Medical Journal5 314 1055 Weiner, C 2001XQDrawing the line in genetic engineering: self regulation and public participationn*#Perseptives in Biology and Medicine44208-2206253-264$://A1986E145900012u0*Wertz, D. C. Sorenson, J. R. Heeren, T. C.D>Clients Interpretation of Risks Provided in Genetic-Counseling("American Journal of Human Genetics Aug 1986392ISI:A1986E145900012$Wilkes, M. S. Kravitz, R. L. 1992\UMedical researchers and the media. Attitudes toward public dissemination of research.h2+Journal of the American Medical Association0 268w999-1003ZTWilkes, L Withnall, J Harris, R White, K Beale, B Hobson, J Durham, M Kristjanson, L 2001~xStories about breast cancer in Australian women's magazines: information sources for risk, early detection and treatment*$European Journal of Oncology Nursing5 80-88285-296$://000173254300001Willard, H. F.HBOn black boxes and storytellers: Lessons learned in human genetics("American Journal of Human GeneticsB;Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 23 Editorial Materiall'*$Univ Hosp Cleveland, Res Inst, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. Univ Hosp Cleveland, Ctr Human Genet, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. Case Western Reserve Univ, Sch Med, Dept Genet, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. Willard, HF, Univ Hosp Cleveland, Res Inst, Lakeside 1400,11100 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. Febl 2002702iISI:000173254300001. Wolpert, L 1998,Dolly the SheepE6Independent InternationalC London18( 7-13 JanuaryRKcloning genes genetic determinism embryology bioethics human genome projectc223-240$://000083872000009Zimmerman, B. K.>8The use of genetic information and public accountability&Public Understanding of Science Jul 199983ISI:000083872000009#KRosner, M Johnson, T.R 1995<6Telling Stories: metaphors of the Human Genome ProjectHypatia10104-129a Rothman, B.K 1998\VGenetic maps and human imaginations: the limits of science in understanding who we are W.W. Norton: New York} Sheedy, K.M. 2000`YTranscending tragedy: a 'comic' critique of public discourse about breast cancer genetics,2+Dissertation, Athens, University of Georgia5 83-109$://000189033600004C Sherry, J. L.rlMedia effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future researchMedia Psychology60Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 96 ArticleIn this article, I provide a historical overview of the nature/nurture debate by exploring the philosophical history of the debate leading up to the inception of media effects research. I argue that the media effects tradition was born into a milieu that was exclusively sided with the nurture (environmental determinist) position and has largely remained so. Within the past 20 years, there have been advances in neurophysiology leading other disciplines to theorize that human behavior is the result of the interaction between nature (genetics, brain physiology) and nurture (learning, culture). In this article, I sample the media effects research emerging from this perspective and argue why this approach is superior to the learning-only approach currently popular in the field of communication. I then discuss the implications of such an approach for communication researchers, framing the critique in terms of the contribution to mass communication theory building.'Purdue Univ, Dept Commun, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. Sherry, JL, Purdue Univ, Dept Commun, 1366 LAEB 2114, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA. jsherry@sla.purdue.edu 200461ISI:000189033600004 $ 82Condit, C. M. Achter, P. J. Lauer, I. Sefcovic, E. 2002a VOThe changing meanings of "mutation": A contextualized study of public discourse5Human Mutation191} 69-75ISI:000173027800010$://000173027800010tpiCondit, C. M. Bates, B. R. Galloway, R. Givens, S. B. Haynie, C. K. Jordan, J. W. Stables, G. West, H. M.\ 2002c\piRecipes or blueprints for our genes? How contexts selectively activate the multiple meanings of metaphors"Quarterly Journal of Speech883303-325 AugISI:000187457700003In the 1990s, critics of public discourse about genetics urged the replacement of the "blueprint" metaphor with the "recipe" metaphor. The subsequent appearance of the "recipe" metaphor in the mass media did not carry the expected reduction of genetic determinism, however. To account for the failure of the critical predictions, this essay extends Josef Stern's contextually based semantic theory of metaphor to a polyvocal theory of how metaphors develop particular patterns of social usage. The essay employs a multi-methodological approach using two different audience studies and textual analyses of focus group transcripts and news texts to trace the blueprint and recipe metaphors from the "productive" set of potential meanings to the "filter" set of contextually activated meanings.t60Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 45 Article$://000187457700003n'Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Univ Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899 USA. Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA. Condit, CM, Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA.249-272$://000223359300003HACondit, C. M. Parrott, R. L. Harris, T. M. Lynch, J. Dubriwny, T.TMThe role of "genetics" in popular understandings of race in the United Statesm&Public Understanding of Science 60Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 70 ArticleThe increase in public representation of the science-based concept "genetics" in the mass media might be expected to have a major impact on public understanding of the concept of "race." A model of lay understandings of the role of genetics in the contemporary United States is offered based on focus group research, random digit dial surveys, and community based surveys. That model indicates that lay people identify race primarily by physical features, but these identifications are categorized into a variety of groupings that may be regional, national, or linguistic. Although they believe that physical appearance is caused largely by genetics, and therefore that race has a genetic basis, they do not uniformly conclude, however, that all perceived racial characteristics are genetically based. Instead, they vary in the extent to which they attribute differences to cultural, personal, and genetic factors.'Penn State Univ, Dept Commun Studies, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Condit, CM, Penn State Univ, Dept Commun Studies, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. ccondit@uga.edu Jul 2004133ISI:000223359300003] . 2211-2220f$://000182313300017LEGeller, G. Tambor, E. S. Bernhardt, B. A. Rodgers, J. Holtzman, N. A.ZSHouseofficers' reactions to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome Social Science & Medicine60Times Cited: 2 Cited Reference Count: 49 Article D >After the announcement that sequencing of the human genome was nearly complete, media coverage was extensive. In light of ample evidence that the media are a primary source of health and science information, even for health professionals, media portrayals are often inaccurate or misleading, and discoveries that emanate from sequencing the human genome are likely to influence future health care, it is important to assess physicians interpretations of media coverage about the human genome announcement. This paper describes the reactions of a sample of ne physicians in the United States to this announcement. as well as the content of the stories they read or heard. Semi-structured surveys were distributed to all incoming houseofficers during Orientation at one major academic medical center. Eighty-one percent of 190 houseofficers returned a survey: 123 completed survey's were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents thought the media message was only positive and 21% thought it was negative or mixed. Participants who reported radio as their media source were less likely to recall positive messages (p < 0.05). Sixty-five percent and 76%, respectively, had positive perceptions of the impact of the accomplishment on people and on the medical profession. Overall, 48% were enthusiastic and 52% were guarded about the accomplishment, Enthusiasm was related to being an adult primary care houseofficer (p = 0.07) or to having heard about it on television or in the newspaper (p < 0.05). Of the 36 stories analyzed. newspaper and television reports focused more on medical implications and radio reports focused more on ethical issues. The degree of enthusiasm about the accomplishment reflects the content of the media coverage, and, at least for adult primary care houseofficers, probably reflects the increasing relevance of genetic discoveries to medical practice. Since physicians obtain much of their health and science information from the media. they can play an instrumental role in helping their patients interpret media coverage of advances in genetics and their impact on health care. However, this will require that physicians develop an appreciation of the newsmaking process. and how subtle interactions between politics, the media and science influence the "framing" of media coverage. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.'zsJohns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Off Commun & Publ Affairs, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Johns Hopkins Univ, Phoebe Berman Bioeth Inst, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Geller, G, Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Off Commun & Publ Affairs, 550 N Broadway,Suite 511, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. May 20035610ISI:000182313300017Gilbert, Scott F 2002pjGenetic Determinism: The battle between scientific data and social image in contemporary molecular biology :4Grunwald, Armin Gutmann, Mathias Neumann-Held, Eva MPJOn Human Nature: Anthropological, Biological and Philosophical Foundations Berlin Springer121-140 `Ygenes genetic determinism genetic information developmental biology developmental systems RAhN_M 47-65$://000226318900003\ Bates, B. R.NHPublic culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study&Public Understanding of Sciencec Jan 2005141ISI:000226318900003 (!Bateson, Patrick P G Martin, Paul  1999>7Design for a Life: How behavior and personality develop London  Jonathan Cape4-development evolution evolutionary psychologyh 93-111$://000176317200002\ Bauer, M. W.PIControversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysisn&Public Understanding of Science Apr 2002112ISI:000176317200002 Bendle, M.F 200282Teleportation, Cyborgs, and the Posthuman IdeologySocial Semiotics12 45-62 62-62$://000089400700270;^XBernhardt, B. A. Geller, G. Tambor, E. Mountcastle-Shah, E. Mulle, J. G. Holtzman, N. A.d]Analysis of media reports on the discovery of breast and prostate cancer susceptibility genes("American Journal of Human Genetics Oct 2000674Suppl. 2ISI:000089400700270 Brookey, R.A 2001HABio-rhetoric, background beliefs and the biology of homosexuality Argumentation and Advocacy37171-183i*$Bubela, Tania M Caulfield, Timothy A 2004voDo the print media hype genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papersg*$Canadian Medical Association Journal 1709 1399-1407April 27LFscience communication gene genetics metaphors newspapers hype genohypeF e Condit 2004D>Science reporting to the public: Does the message get twisted?,%Canadian Medical ACeleste Condit 2004D>Science reporting to the public: Does the message get twisted?,%Canadian Medical Association. Journal 170o9 1415 Apr 27, 200408203946 Early social scientific research on genetics reporting tended to assume that the media were "getting it wrong,"2 but it soon became clear that anecdotal and sweeping assessments were subject to observer bias. It was all too natural for critics to notice and reprint examples of egregious reporting, portraying these as typical of the rapidly burgeoning area of genetics reporting. Similarly, these critics applied their own assumptions - usually that any favourable reporting about genetics was undesirable - to condemn all reporting about genetics as bad, simply because much of it contained favourable elements. More recent research has used quantitative measures, paid attention to sampling and generalizability, used standardized and accepted measuring instruments, checked coder reliability and used increasingly sophisticated analytic methods such as the classification and regression tree analysis applied in the study by [Tania Bubela] and Caulfield.1 Such research highlights that studying media coverage of genetics is as complex as the genetics itself, for communication is not a simple, linear process. What then does the line of research represented by Bubela and [Timothy Caulfield]'s study mean for medical researchers trying to communicate with the public about health? First, researchers 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. Second, researchers should talk to reporters. 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. But researchers must prepare for such interviews as carefully as they would prepare for a talk at a scientific conference. The researcher should know exactly what she or he intends to communicate to the reporter and should resist the reporter's efforts to gain commentary that is different from what the researcher wishes to communicate. Detailed guidance about what is desired by lay audiences, as agreed upon by scientists and reporters, is provided by Mountcastle-Shah and associates;3 noteworthy in their catalogue are replication status, opinion of outside experts, prevalence of the genotype and phenotypes, and symptoms of disease. It is perfectly reasonable to ask a reporter to send written questions in advance of the interview. When that is not possible, the researcher should at least be prepared to avoid answering the reporter's inevitable question - "What is this good for?" - with an enthusiastic forecast of potential applications. Given the dynamics of science reporting, the reporter will probably feature rosy forecasts if the scientist is willing to offer them, yet such forecasts may all too often come to be seen as broken promises. If it is appropriate to link the research to the development of medical treatments, supplying colourful metaphors that emphasize the distance from the ultimate goal may be a good way to do so. Thus, the researcher might say that this is one baby step on the long journey toward the cure for X or that it is one tiny piece in the giant jigsaw puzzle that might someday enable prevention or treatment of Y. Finally, if a reporter exaggerates or is inaccurate in the final story or broadcast, the researcher should let the reporter's editor know and should tell other researchers about the experience with that particular reporter. TY - JOURConrad, P Weinberg, Dt 1996`YHas the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980? a news media analysis3Perspect Soc Problemsf8e 3-25|261-261$://000174482200015nBucchi, M. Neresini, F.p~wBiotech remains unloved by the more informed - The media may be providing the message - but is anyone heeding the call?e Nature4.Times Cited: 4 Cited Reference Count: 0 Letter'Univ Trent, Dept Social Sci, I-38100 Trent, Italy. Univ Padua, Dept Sociol, I-35122 Padua, Italy. Bucchi, M, Univ Trent, Dept Social Sci, Via Verdi 26, I-38100 Trent, Italy.l Mar 21 2002 416o 6878ISI:000174482200015e269-283$://000225855400003n Bucchi, M.f_Can genetics help us rethink communication? Public communication of science as a 'double helix'New Genetics and Society60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 42 ArticlePublic communication of science is still largely conceptualized within a 'transfier' paradigm that describes it as a displacement of results and ideas from the specialists to the lay public, problematizing the public, the media, (sometimes) science, but very rarely the notion of communication itself. This paper is a preliminary attempt to see if the discourse about genes and the genome can help us to problematize the concept of communication in relation to science, rethink our models of public communication of science and, more generally, the metaphors we employ to describe communication. It is suggested that the relationship between science and the public could be understood better by viewing communication through metaphors drawn from contemporary biology, e.g. as 'cross-talk' between the specialist and public discourse or as a 'double helix' coupling the two dimensions under certain conditions.'Univ Trent, Dept Human & Social Sci, I-38100 Trento, Italy. Bucchi, M, Univ Trent, Dept Human & Social Sci, Via Verdi 26, I-38100 Trento, Italy. mbucchi@soc.unitn.it Dec 2004233ISI:000225855400003  *?x, H3F@Parrott, R. Silk, K. Krieger, J.R. Harris, T. M.. Condit, C. A. 2004hbBehavioral health outcomes associated with religious faith and media exposure about human geneticsHealth Communication161 29-45 Abstract only437-455$://A1992KA58300001Parsons, E. Atkinson, P.(!Lay Constructions of Genetic Risk0$Sociology of Health & Illness Dec 1992144ISI:A1992KA58300001Petersen, Alan 1999The Portrayal of Research into Genetic-Based Differences of Sex and Sexual Orientation: A Study of "Popular" Science Journals, 1980 to 19979& Journal of Communication Inquiry23163-182e 1255-1268$://000167613200009 Petersen, A.B;Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media Social Science & Medicinei81Times Cited: 19 Cited Reference Count: 78 ArticleiThe contemporary news media is an important site for exploring the diverse and complex cultural images of genetics and its medical possibilities, and of the mechanisms by which these images are (re) produced and sustained. This article investigates how the print news media 'frames' stories on genetics and medicine. It is based on a discourse analysis of articles appearing in three Australian newspapers in the late 1990s. Gene stories were found to be prominent in each of the newspapers, and to emphasise the medical benefits of genetic research. Stories frequently cite and quote scientists, who explain the nature and significance of the research and/or its implications for treatment or prevention. Many stories focus on new genetic discoveries, and portray genetic researchers as involved in a quest to unlock nature's secrets. Stories of hope, and depictions of geneticists as warriors or heroes, appear regularly. The positive vision of genetics is supported by the use of particular metaphors, accompanying illustrative material, 'human interest' stories, and reference to credible sources. There is rarely mention of the influence of non-genetic factors and 'multifactorial' interactions on disorders, or questioning of the goals, direction, methods, or value of genetic research. Scientists made extensive use of the media in their efforts to maintain a positive image of research in the face of public concerns about scientists 'going too far.', following the announcement of the cloning of Dolly. Boundaries were drawn between 'therapeutic cloning' - implicitly defined as 'good', useful, and legitimate - and 'reproductive cloning' - seen as 'bad', dangerous, and illegitimate. By framing news stories as they do, the print news media are likely to exert a powerful influence on public responses to health problems. With new genetic technologies becoming more integrated in preventive medicine and public health, it. is important to investigate how news stories help shape the agenda for public debate. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.'Murdoch Univ, Sch Social Inquiry, Sociol Programme, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. Petersen, A, Murdoch Univ, Sch Social Inquiry, Sociol Programme, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. Apr 2001528ISI:000167613200009939-942$://000089078300019 Priest, S. H.d4-US public opinion divided over biotechnology?3Nature Biotechnology60Times Cited: 26 Cited Reference Count: 7 Article'Texas A&M Univ, Dept Journalism, College Stn, TX 77843 USA. Priest, SH, Texas A&M Univ, Dept Journalism, College Stn, TX 77843 USA. Sep 2000189ISI:000089078300019 Priest, S. H 2001leMisplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology DevelopmentScience Communicationt232t 97-110Science communicators and the broader scientific community often expect media information campaigns to mold attitudes about science and technology in predictable ways. But, resistance to technology is not always based on ignorance, and the ability of media-based education to directly shape opinions is actually quite limited. This article uses data from a recent U.S. national survey on opinions about biotechnology to argue that trust in institutional actors is a bigger factor than genetic knowledge in predicting encouragement for specific applications of biotechnology. The results have implications for the practice of science, as well as for the practice of science communication.r*#Ramsey, E.M Achter, P Condit, C. M. 2001jdGenetics, Race and Crime: an audience study exploring the effects of The Bell Curve and book reviews,&Critical Studies in Mass Communication18 1-22&Ransohoff, D.F, Ransohoff, R.M 2001b[Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaboratorsc"Effective Clinical Practice64f185-188RRapp, R 1988HBChromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counselingMed Anthropol Quarterlyf2{143-1570 29-47$://000225928200002 Ratner, C.& Genes and psychology in the newsNew Ideas in Psychology60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 42 ArticleThis article critiques the way that news articles report the relationship between genes and psychological processes. The news frequently reports that genes cause various psychological processes. However, these claims rest upon unscientific data; selective use of data (ignoring contradictory data); failure to consider just how the physical properties of genes and their by-products (e.g., neurotransmitters) could or could not control psychological phenomena; misconstruing the nature of psychological phenomena; specious arguments; and unwarranted leaps of faith. Consequently, the causal conclusion is unwarranted, and news reports misinform the public about this vital issue. The author delineates an alternative theory of the relation between biology and psychology which explains why genes may correlate with psychological processes without causing, or predisposing, them. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.'Inst Cultural Res & Educ, Trinidad, CA 95570 USA. Ratner, C, Inst Cultural Res & Educ, POB 1294, Trinidad, CA 95570 USA. cr2@humboldt1.com Apr 2004221ISI:000225928200002Richards, M. . 1996@:Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance&Public Understanding of Sciencet5217-230\307-312$://000182338800002Rose, S. P. R.,&How to (or not to) communicate science& Biochemical Society TransactionsProtagonists for 'the public understanding of science' still sometimes fail to recognize that there is also a need for 'the scientists' understanding the public' and that for most of science most of the time we are all public. 'Science' is communicated to 'the public' through popular books, museums, TV, the internet, but far too often the present state of scientific belief is presented uncritically as the onward march of truth as discovered by Euro-American males. This has contributed to a widespread public concern, if not mistrust, in many areas of science, not least genetics and neuroscience. Although researchers often criticize the media for misrepresenting their work, the hype and simplifications often begin with the press releases put out by the researchers, their institutions and the scientific journals themselves. I conclude by looking more optimistically at the ways in which, by bringing nature science into theatre, novels and other art forms, the fragmentation of our culture may be diminished.'Open Univ, Brain & Behav Res Grp, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, Bucks, England. Rose, SPR, Open Univ, Brain & Behav Res Grp, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, Bucks, England. Apr 200331<6Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 3 Article Part 2ISI:000182338800002 ^L8t*)uc791-803$://A1995RD99400010Macer, D. R. J. Akiyama, S. Alora, A. T. Asada, Y. Azariah, J. Azariah, H. Boost, M. V. Chatwachirawong, P. Kato, Y. Kaushik, V. Leavitt, F. J. Macer, N. Y. Ong, C. C. Srinives, P. Tsuzuki, M.<6International Perceptions and Approval of Gene-TherapyHuman Gene Therapy Jun 199566ISI:A1995RD99400010945-947$://000089078300021Macer, D. Ng, M. A. C.2,Changing attitudes to biotechnology in JapanNature Biotechnology Sep 2000189 ISI:000089078300021423-432$://000172383800001,Maienschein, J.iF@On cloning: Advocating history of biology in the public interest(!Journal of the History of Biologya60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 37 Article82Cloning - the process of creating a cell, tissue line or even a complete organism from a single cell - or the strands that led to the cloning of a mammal, Dolly, are not new. Yet the media coverage of Dolly's inception raised a range of reactions from fear or moral repulsion, to cautious optimism. The implications for controlling human reproduction were clearly in the forefront, though many issues about animals emerged as well. On topics of public interest such as cloning, historians of biology have the opportunity to make a unique contribution. Such debates are often aired as if they have no precedents, either in biology or in the ethical, moral, and social concerns arising in the public arena. The technology leading to Dolly draws on strands of research going back to the 1890s, and the cycle of public response has been repeated often in the past century. What can we learn from examining these events historically, and how can we - or should we even try - to inform public opinion? I think we should try and will outline briefly some of the ways that can work.'Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. Maienschein, J, Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. 2001343ISI:000172383800001423-432$://000172383800001\Maienschein, J.pF@On cloning: Advocating history of biology in the public interest(!Journal of the History of Biologya60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 37 Article82Cloning - the process of creating a cell, tissue line or even a complete organism from a single cell - or the strands that led to the cloning of a mammal, Dolly, are not new. Yet the media coverage of Dolly's inception raised a range of reactions from fear or moral repulsion, to cautious optimism. The implications for controlling human reproduction were clearly in the forefront, though many issues about animals emerged as well. On topics of public interest such as cloning, historians of biology have the opportunity to make a unique contribution. Such debates are often aired as if they have no precedents, either in biology or in the ethical, moral, and social concerns arising in the public arena. The technology leading to Dolly draws on strands of research going back to the 1890s, and the cycle of public response has been repeated often in the past century. What can we learn from examining these events historically, and how can we - or should we even try - to inform public opinion? I think we should try and will outline briefly some of the ways that can work.'Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. Maienschein, J, Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. 2001343ISI:000172383800001 1899-1904A$://000175624600003uMakgoba, M. W.NGPolitics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience1Vaccinel May 6\ 20022015 Sp. Iss. SIISI:000175624600003Melzer, D. Zimmern, R. 2002"Genetics and medicalisation BMJ 324863-8646ReMichael, M Carter, S 2001VOThe facts about fictions and vice versa: public understanding of human geneticsScience as Culture10 5-32Mitchell, G.R. 2000VPStrategic deception: rhetoric, science and politics in missile defense advocacy.4-Michigan State University Press, East Lansingg<6Moligner, A. Otten, M. Cunningham, J. D. Brower, S. T. 1998:4Awareness and attitudes concerning BRCA gene testing"Annals of Surgical Oncologyo5.7o607-612 Oct-NovrISI:000076936300012$://000076936300012] Molitor, F 1993nhAccuracy in science news reporting by newspapers: the case of asprin for the prevention of heart attacksHealth Communication55209-224iMoore, David S 2001@:The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature versus Nurture" New York W.H Freeman/Times BooksBNGdevelopmental psychobiology developmental systems theory nature/nurtures 43-48$://000168716500018f Morris, S. H. Adley, C. C.jdIrish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foodsTrends in Biotechnologyr60Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 18 ArticleThis article summarizes the current situation pertaining to modern biotechnology in Ireland, with a particular focus on genetically modified (GM) crops. It briefly examines some important results of the major national surveys carried out in Ireland since 1989, highlights the recent upsurge in media (newspaper) coverage of GM related stories in three Irish opinion leader publications and it allows for an insight into the Irish public's relationship with modern biotechnology.'Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. Univ Limerick, Dept Chem & Environm Sci, Limerick, Ireland. Morris, SH, Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.i Febc 2001192vISI:000168716500018ty to make a unique contribution. Such debates are often aired as if they have no precedents, either in biology or in the ethical, moral, and social concerns arising in the public arena. The technology leading to Dolly draws on strands of research going back to the 1890s, and the cycle of public response has been repeated often in the past century. What can we learn from examining these events historically, and how can we - or should we even try - to inform public opinion? I think we should try and will outline briefly some of the ways that can work.'Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. Maienschein, J, Arizona State Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA. 2001343ISI:000172383800001Melzer, D. Zimmern, R. 2002"Genetics and medicalisation BMJ 324863-8646ReMitchell, G.R. 2000VPStrategic deception: rhetoric, science and politics in missile defense advocacy.4-Michigan State University Press, East Lansingg607-612$://000076936300012t<6Mogilner, A. Otten, M. Cunningham, J. D. Brower, S. T.:4Awareness and attitudes concerning BRCA gene testing"Annals of Surgical OncologyiOct-Nov0 1998587ISI:000076936300012Moore, David S 2001@:The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature versus Nurture" New York W.H Freeman/Times BooksBNGdevelopmental psychobiology developmental systems theory nature/nurtures 43-48$://000168716500018f Morris, S. H. Adley, C. C.jdIrish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foodsTrends in Biotechnologyr60Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 18 ArticleThis article summarizes the current situation pertaining to modern biotechnology in Ireland, with a particular focus on genetically modified (GM) crops. It briefly examines some important results of the major national surveys carried out in Ireland since 1989, highlights the recent upsurge in media (newspaper) coverage of GM related stories in three Irish opinion leader publications and it allows for an insight into the Irish public's relationship with modern biotechnology.'Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. Univ Limerick, Dept Chem & Environm Sci, Limerick, Ireland. Morris, SH, Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.i Febc 2001192vISI:000168716500018 `x E0x7="lfCassels, Alan Hughes, Merrilee A. Cole, Carol Mintzes, Barbara Lexchin, Joel McCormack, James P. 2003^WDrugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs*$Canadian Medical Association Journal 168 1133-1137R Caulfield, T.1 2000LFUnderwhelmed: hyperbole, regulatory policy and the genetic revolution. McGill Law45437-460n Refr*$Caulfield, T. Gold, E. R. Cho, M. K. 2000aa>7Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debateNature Reviews Geneticst153o227-231\ DecbISI:000165763700016$://000165763700016337-339$://000222712000006 Caulfield, T.JDBiotechnology and the popular press: hype and the selling of scienceTrends in BiotechnologyB;Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 26 Editorial MaterialThe popular media has emerged as an important source of scientific information. It has been suggested that the portrayal of genetics by the media is often inaccurate a phenomenon branded 'genohype' - and, as a result, is having an adverse impact on public understanding and policy development. However, emerging data suggest that, in some circumstances, the media reporting of science is surprisingly accurate and portrays a message created by the scientific community. As such, there are reasons to believe that the hyping of research results might be part of a more systemic problem associated with the increasingly commercial nature of the research environment.'Univ Alberta, Hlth Law Inst, Law Ctr 461, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H5, Canada. Caulfield, T, Univ Alberta, Hlth Law Inst, Law Ctr 461, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H5, Canada. tcaulfld@law.ualberta.ca Jult 2004227tISI:000222712000006iCeccarelli, Leah 2004piNeither confusing cacophony nor culinary complements: A case study of mixed metaphors for genomic sciencenWritten Communicationr2110 92-105& Cohen, L Fine, B.A Pergament, E. 1998hbAn assessment of ethnocultural beliefs regarding the causes of birth defects and genetic disorders$Journal of Genetic Counselling7 15-30979-984$://000073514400030,&Condit, C. M. Ofulue, N. Sheedy, K. M.81Determinism and mass-media portrayals of geneticse("American Journal of Human Genetics AprJ 1998624ISI:000073514400030Condit, Celeste M. 1999ad{How the public understands genetics: non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the ``blueprint'' metaphort&Public Understanding of Science8 July169-180$science communication geneticsCritics have worried that recent mass media coverage of genetics encourages genetic determinism and discriminatory attitudes in the public. They have identified the ``blueprint'' metaphor as one major component of public discourse that encourages such undesirable public opinions. To assess public interpretations of popular discourse about genetics, this audience study exposed 137 college students to sample genetics news articles and asked for their interpretations of the ``blueprint'' metaphor and of genetics in general. A larger group, the plurality, offered non-deterministic interpretations and perspectives on genetics. A small minority offered discriminatory interpretations, whereas a plurality offered explicit antidiscriminatory interpretations and opinions. Non-deterministic views were based on interpretations of the blueprint metaphor that understood genes as operating in a partial and probabilistic fashion, and that interpreted genes as malleable through individual will or technological intervention. Condit, C.Mn 1999bB8gene bioethics heredity innateness science communication Condit, C. A.o 2001.(What is 'public opinion' about genetics?Nature Reviews24811-815arse about genetics urged the replacement of the "blueprint" metaphor with the "recipe" metaphor. The subsequent appearance of the "recipe" metaphor in the mass media did not carry the expected reduction of genetic determinism, however. To account for the failure of the critical predictions, this essay extends Josef Stern's contextually based semantic theory of metaphor to a polyvocal theory of how metaphors develop particular patterns of social usage. The essay employs a multi-methodological approach using two different audience studies and textual analyses of focus group transcripts and news texts to trace the blueprint and recipe metaphors from the "productive" set of potential meanings to the "filter" set of contextually activated meanings.'Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Univ Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899 USA. Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA. Condit, CM, Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Aug 2002883ISI:000187457700003 I|..:Jl.}&570-570$://000072213200007Gill, M. Richards, T.tnMeeting the challenge of genetic advance - Requires rigorous navigation between laboratory clinic, and societyBritish Medical JournalS Feb 21 1998 316 7131ISI:000072213200007 1762-1767\$://0001784847000300)Gollust, S. E. Hull, S. C. Wilfond, B. S.PJLimitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing60Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association Oct 9 2002 28814ISI:000178484700030I667-669$://000175678600004J Gottweis, H.4.Gene therapy and the public: a matter of trust Gene Therapy60Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 10 ArticleThe relationship between genetic engineering and the public has never been a very harmonious one. Many scientists believe that public concerns about gene therapy are simply based on misunderstandings and lack of scientific information. In this 'deficit theory' of the public, most difficulties in the interaction between science and the public are derived from the assumption that there is a communication gap between scientists and the public. However, public opinion research shows clearly that the various 'publics' have a differentiated, and generally positive perception of medical biotechnology. It is not so much lack of information, as lack of trust which explains the difficult relationship between gene therapy and society. For the future, it will be crucial not only to focus on the idea of 'educating the public', but to find new communicative and institutional formats to generate trust.'Univ Vienna, Dept Polit Sci, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Gottweis, H, Univ Vienna, Dept Polit Sci, Waehringerstr 28, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Jun 2002911ISI:000175678600004(!Hallowell, N Statham, H Murton, F 1998rlWomen's understanding of their risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counselling$Journal of Genetic Counselling7}345-3641<6Hamer, D.H Hu, S Magnuson, V.L Hu, N Pattatucci, A.M.L 1993TMA linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation Science Communicationo 261c320-326H2,Hargreaves, Ian Lewis, Justin Speers, Tammy 2003>7Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Mediaw2+Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)0 1-64D>http://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/DownloadDocs/Mapdocfinal.pdfHedgecoe, A. M.1 200060The popularization of genetics as geneticization&Public Understanding of Science912f183-189 AprsISI:000087066100007b Abstract only6/Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 20 Review$://000087066100007'Univ Coll London, Dept Sci & Technol Studies, London WC1E 6BT, England. Hedgecoe, AM, Univ Coll London, Dept Sci & Technol Studies, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, England.Hedgecoe, A.M. 2001PIEthical boundary work: Geneticization, philosophy and the social sciencesl*$Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy4o305-309c107-109$://000220488800006 Hedgecoe, A.Giving up on geneticization: a comment on Hedgecoe's 'Expansion and uncertainty: cystic fibrosis, classification and genetics' - A reply to Anne Kerr$Sociology of Health & Illness@:Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 7 Editorial Material'Univ Sussex, Dept Sociol, Brighton BN1 9SN, E Sussex, England. Hedgecoe, A, Univ Sussex, Dept Sociol, Brighton BN1 9SN, E Sussex, England. A.M.Hedgecoe@sussex.ac.uk Jan  2004261lISI:000220488800006a560-578$://000082304600004t"Henderson, L. Kitzinger, J.mf_The human drama of genetics: 'hard' and 'soft' media representations of inherited breast cancer{$Sociology of Health & Illness^Xpublic understanding; media; fiction; documentary; mastectomy; science press; rise; fall SepP 1999215PISI:000082304600004Aince 1989, highlights the recent upsurge in media (newspaper) coverage of GM related stories in three Irish opinion leader publications and it allows for an insight into the Irish public's relationship with modern biotechnology.'Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. Univ Limerick, Dept Chem & Environm Sci, Limerick, Ireland. Morris, SH, Univ Guelph, Dept Plant Agr, Ctr Safe Food, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.i Febc 2001192vISI:000168716500018rw/\sJ|9vt@fqem;+F285-302$://000084645700002 Conrad, P.\VUses of expertise: sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news&Public Understanding of Science Oct 1999840ISI:000084645700002225-247$://000169210600004A Conrad, P.D>Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news&Culture Medicine and Psychiatrye60Times Cited: 9 Cited Reference Count: 35 ArticleOver the past two decades the pace and specificity of discoveries associating genetics with mental illness has accelerated, which is reflected in an increase in news coverage about the genetics of mental disorder. The news media is a major source of public understanding of genetics and a strong influence on public discourse. This paper examines the news coverage of genetics and mental illness (i.e., bipolar illness and schizophrenia) over a 25 year period, emphasizing the peak period of 1987-1994. Using a sample of 110 news stories from 5 major American newspapers and 3 news magazines, we identify the frame of "genetic optimism'' which dominated the reporting of genetics and mental illness beginning in the mid-1980s. The structure of the frame is comprised of 3 elements: a gene for the disorder exists; it will be found; and it will be good. New discoveries of genes were announced with great fanfare, but the most promising claims could not be replicated or were retracted in short order. Despite these disconfirmations, genetic optimism persisted in subsequent news stories. While the scientific accuracy of the gene stories is high, the genetic optimism frame distorts some of the findings, misrepresents and reifies the impact of genes on mental disorder, and leaves no space for critics or an examination of potential negative impacts. The stances of reporters, scientists and editors may all in different ways contribute to the perpetuation of genetic optimism. Genetic optimism presents an overly sanguine picture of the state of genetics; as we enter the genetic age it is important to balance the extraneous "hype and hope'' contained in news stories of genetics and mental illness.'|Brandeis Univ, Dept Sociol MS071, Waltham, MA 02454 USA. Conrad, P, Brandeis Univ, Dept Sociol MS071, Waltham, MA 02454 USA. 2001252ISI:000169210600004$Conrad, Peter Markens, Susan, 2001b\Constructing the 'gay gene' in the news: optimism and skepticism in the US and British press Health5373-390eCox, S.M McKellin, W 1999nhThere's this thing in our family: predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington disease$Sociology of Health & Illness 21622-646160-174$://000088010300014 Craig, D. A.F?Ethical language and themes in news coverage of genetic testing 0)Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly  Spr 2000771ISI:000088010300014("Cunningham-Burley, S Kerr, A 1999Defining the 'social': towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics&Sociology of Health and Illness`21647-648$Davis, A Barns, I Schibeci, R 1997\VProblematic publics: a critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnologySci Tech Hum Valuest22317-348{317-348$://A1997XG26700003}("Davison, A. Barns, I. Schibeci, R.\VProblematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology(!Science Technology & Human Values Sum 1997223ISI:A1997XG26700003DeAngelis, Catherine, D. 20000)Conflict of Interest and the Public Trust60Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 284e17 2237-2238\ Dijck, J.V 1998.'Imagenation: Popular Images of Geneticsr *#New York University Press, New York\241-256$://000181071800006l"Dimopoulos, K. Koulaidis, V.XQScience and technology education for citizenship: The potential role of the pressfScience Education Mar 2003872ISI:000181071800006Doble, J 1995f`Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty&Public Understanding of Science\4; 95-118943-944$://000089078300020Einsiedel, E. F.:4Cloning and its discontents - a Canadian perspectiveNature Biotechnology Sep 2000189ISI:000089078300020 Fleising, U. 2001TMIn search of genohype: a content analysis of biotechnology company documents.New Genetics and Society20239-254r531-532$://000175973500005 Fox, J. L.XREugenics concerns rekindle with application of gene therapy and genetic counselingNature Biotechnology Jun4 2002206ISI:000175973500005Frewer, L. J Shepard, R  1994Attributing information to different sources: effects on the perceived qualities of information, on the perceived relevance of information and on attitude formation&Public Understanding of Science3385-401 98-124$://A1997WA06000005,%Frewer, L. J. Howard, C. Shepherd, R.Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethicsB(!Science Technology & Human Values Win 1997221ISI:A1997WA06000005,%Frewer, L. J. Howard, C. Shepherd, R. tmThe influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food productiono"Agriculture and Human Values 1998151 35-50$://000079762400003\:3Frewer, L. J. Howard, C. Hedderley, D. Shepherd, R.Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness&Public Understanding of Science Jan 19998A1ISI:000079762400003Furr, L. Allen 2002}Perceptions of genetics research as harmful to society: Differences among samples of African-Americans and European-AmericansGenetics Testing61 25-30384-387$://00008146590004760Gaskell, G. Bauer, M. W. Durant, J. Allum, N. C.TNWorlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the USScience Jul 16 1999 285 5426ISI:000081465900047935-938$://000089078300018e4.Gaskell, G. Allum, N. Bauer, M. Durant, J. Allansdottir, A. Bonfadelli, H. Boy, D. de Cheveigne, S. Fjaestad, B. Gutteling, J. M. Hampel, J. Jelsoe, E. Jesuino, J. C. Kohring, M. Kronberger, N. Midden, C. Nielsen, T. H. Przestalski, A. Rusanen, T. Sakellaris, G. Torgersen, H. Twardowski, T. Wagner, W.,%Biotechnology and the European publicNNature Biotechnology Sep, 2000189.ISI:000089078300018d773-773$://000173809500038m2+Geller, G. Bernhardt, B. A. Holtzman, N. A.81The media and public reaction to genetic researcht60Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association60Times Cited: 6 Cited Reference Count: 10 Article'jdJohns Hopkins Univ, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. Geller, G, Johns Hopkins Univ, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. Feb 13 2002 287 6.ISI:000173809500038yag[yo p 633-664$://000083670900007(!Singer, E. Corning, A. Lamias, M.RKTrends: Genetic testing, engineering, and therapy - Awareness and attitudesPublic Opinion Quarterly WinT 1998624PISI:000083670900007429-445$://000084518700007m.'Singer, E. Corning, A. D. Antonucci, T.F?Attitudes toward genetic testing and fetal diagnosis, 1990-1996,%Journal of Health and Social BehaviorT Dec 1999404ISI:000084518700007 24-49$://000181668400002 Smart, A.LFReporting the dawn of the post-genomic era: who wants to live forever?$Sociology of Health & Illnessl60Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 50 ArticleOn the 26 June 2000 the teams involved in mapping the human genome announced to the world's media that they had completed the 'first draft'. This paper is a content analysis of UK press coverage of the announcement, particularly of the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) contained therein. Widespread and highly visible coverage of the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was characterised by press ambivalence towards, on the one hand, the optimistic future of post-genomic medicine and, on the other hand, the pessimistic vision of post-genomic society. Coverage of the positive medical implications characteristically echoed the exuberance felt by the champions of human genetic research, focusing on longevity and a cure for cancer. Articles on ELSIs either repeated long-standing concerns about genetic discrimination and the redesign of human life, or introduced more novel topics such as the commercialisation of genetic science, genetic determinism and 'living forever'. Press reports on the more novel ELSIs addressed the political and economic context of the science, its 'social value' and its complexity, issues that have often been lacking in media coverage of human genetics. However, as a contribution to public awareness and policy frameworks surrounding human genetic science, press coverage was deficient in important respects. The HGPs proponents were the press's key source of information about its ELSIs. Journalists addressed only a limited number of ELSIs, focusing on issues that were 'manageable' by regulation. or legislation rather than concerns such as risk, clinical utility or opportunity costs. Furthermore, those articles that addressed the more novel concerns were often presented using sensationalist news values. As a media representation of science, coverage of the 'first draft' in the UK press demonstrated both 'source dependence' and a bias toward the legitimacy of science, although the coverage of the more novel ELSIs indicated some mistrust toward scientific governance.t'Univ Nottingham, Inst Study Biorisks Genet & Soc, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England. Smart, A, Univ Nottingham, Inst Study Biorisks Genet & Soc, Univ Pk, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England. andrew.smart@nottingham.ac.uk Janc 2003251ISI:0001816684000022 1-&$://A1981NG329000012+Sorenson, J. R. Swazey, J. P. Scotch, N. A.VPReproductive Pasts Reproductive Futures Genetic-Counseling and Its Effectiveness,%Birth Defects-Original Article SeriesB 1981174 ISI:A1981NG32900001301-301$://000090019100001d Steele, F. R.A matter of trustMolecular Therapy Apr 20001 4ISI:000090019100001&Sterelny, Kim Griffiths, Paul Ee 1999B;Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biologyh Chicago "University of Chicago Press579-596$://000082304600005d Stockdale, A.XQWaiting for the cure: mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research}$Sociology of Health & Illness Sep 1999215ISI:000082304600005 55-74$://000221338100004SSturgis, P. Allum, N. NGScience in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes&Public Understanding of Science Jan 2004131ISI:000221338100004F Celeste Condit 2004D>Science reporting to the public: Does the message get twisted?,%Canadian Medical Association. Journal 170o9 1415 Apr 27, 200408203946 Early social scientific research on genetics reporting tended to assume that the media were "getting it wrong,"2 but it soon became clear that anecdotal and sweeping assessments were subject to observer bias. It was all too natural for critics to notice and reprint examples of egregious reporting, portraying these as typical of the rapidly burgeoning area of genetics reporting. Similarly, these critics applied their own assumptions - usually that any favourable reporting about genetics was undesirable - to condemn all reporting about genetics as bad, simply because much of it contained favourable elements. More recent research has used quantitative measures, paid attention to sampling and generalizability, used standardized and accepted measuring instruments, checked coder reliability and used increasingly sophisticated analytic methods such as the classification and regression tree analysis applied in the study by [Tania Bubela] and Caulfield.1 Such research highlights that studying media coverage of genetics is as complex as the genetics itself, for communication is not a simple, linear process. What then does the line of research represented by Bubela and [Timothy Caulfield]'s study mean for medical researchers trying to communicate with the public about health? First, researchers 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. Second, researchers should talk to reporters. 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. But researchers must prepare for such interviews as carefully as they would prepare for a talk at a scientific conference. The researcher should know exactly what she or he intends to communicate to the reporter and should resist the reporter's efforts to gain commentary that is different from what the researcher wishes to communicate. Detailed guidance about what is desired by lay audiences, as agreed upon by scientists and reporters, is provided by Mountcastle-Shah and associates;3 noteworthy in their catalogue are replication status, opinion of outside experts, prevalence of the genotype and phenotypes, and symptoms of disease. It is perfectly reasonable to ask a reporter to send written questions in advance of the interview. When that is not possible, the researcher should at least be prepared to avoid answering the reporter's inevitable question - "What is this good for?" - with an enthusiastic forecast of potential applications. Given the dynamics of science reporting, the reporter will probably feature rosy forecasts if the scientist is willing to offer them, yet such forecasts may all too often come to be seen as broken promises. If it is appropriate to link the research to the development of medical treatments, supplying colourful metaphors that emphasize the distance from the ultimate goal may be a good way to do so. Thus, the researcher might say that this is one baby step on the long journey toward the cure for X or that it is one tiny piece in the giant jigsaw puzzle that might someday enable prevention or treatment of Y. Finally, if a reporter exaggerates or is inaccurate in the final story or broadcast, the researcher should let the reporter's editor know and should tell other researchers about the experience with that particular reporter. TY - JOURConrad, P Weinberg, Dt 1996`YHas the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980? a news media analysis3Perspect Soc Problemsf8e 3-25 Conrad, P" 1997`YPublic eyes and private genes: historical frames, news constructions, and social problemslSocial Problemse44139-154a  | Koren, G. Koslowski, P Koulaidis, V.Kravitz, R. L. Krieger, J.R. Krieger, JR Krimbas, K.Kristjanson, LKronberger, N. Lamias, M. Lauer, I.Leavitt, F. J. Leftwich, G.M Levitt, M. Lewis, Justin Lewontin, R Lexchin, Joel Lindee, M. S. Lindee, Susan Lorenz, D. R. Lynch, J. Lynch, J. A. M., Harris T. Maasen, S Macer, D.Macer, D. R. J. Macer, N. Y. Magnuson VL Magnuson, V.LMagnuson, V.L.Maguire, B. T.Maienschein, J.Makgoba, M. W. Markens, S.Markens, Susan Martin, PaulMcCormack, James P. McGuire, B.T McKellin, W Melzer, D. Michael, M Midden, C.Mintzes, BarbaraMitchell, G.R. Mogilner, A. Moligner, A. Molitor, FMoore, David S Morris, S. H.Mountcastle-Shah, E. Mulle, J. G. Murton, F Murton, F.N, Hu N., Hu Nelkin, D Nelkin, D.Nelkin, Dorothy Neresini, F. Nerlich, B Nerlich, B.Nerlich, BrigitteNeumann-Held, E.MNeumann-Held, Eva M Ng, M. A. C.Nielsen, T. H. Nordgren, A. Oda, L. M. Ofulue, N. Ong, C. C. Otten, M. Oyama, Susan Pardo, Rafael Parrott, R Parrott, R.Parrott, R. L. Parsons, E.Pattatucci, A.M.L Paul, D. Pergament, E Pergament, E. Petersen, A.Petersen, Alan Poirot, K. Priest, S. H Priest, S. H.Przestalski, A. R, Dingwall R, Parrott Ramsey, E.MRansohoff, D.FRansohoff, R.M Rapp, R Ratner, C.Richards, M. .Richards, M. P. M. Richards, T. Rodgers, J.Rodgers, J. E.Rose, S. P. R. Rosner, M Rothman, B.KRothstein, M. A. Rusanen, T. S., HuSakellaris, G. Schibeci, R Schibeci, R.Schibeci, Renato Scotch, N. A. Sefcovic, E. Shaw, Robin Sheedy, K. M. Sheedy, K.M. Shepard, R Shepherd, R. Sherry, J. L. Silk, K Silk, K. Singer, E. Singh, R. Smart, A.Soares, B. E. C.Sorenson, J. R. Speers, Tammy Srinives, P. Stables, G. Statham, H Statham, H. Steele, F. R. Sterelny, Kim Stockdale, A. Sturgis, P. Swazey, J. P. Tambor, E. Tambor, E. S.Ten Eyck, T. A.Ten Have, Henk, A.M.J. Torgersen, H. Tsuzuki, M. Turner, S.STwardowski, T. V.L, Magnuson Vines, G Wagner, W. Wald, E. Weinberg, D Weiner, C Weiner, K. Weingart, P Wertz, D. C. West, H. M. White, KWilfond, B. S. Wilkes, L Wilkes, M. S.Willard, H. F. Williment, M. Withnall, J Wolpert, LZimmerman, B. K. Zimmern, R. WVtUfXl14(*D458-478$://000183161900003piMountcastle-Shah, E. Tambor, E. Bernhardt, B. A. Geller, G. Karaliukas, R. Rodgers, J. E. Holtzman, N. A.eyAssessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries - Development of an instrument and initial findingsiScience Communicationo60Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 26 Article Objective: To develop an instrument to assess the content and balance of media stories about genetic discoveries relevant to human diseases and assess its ability to detect variability. Methods: Consumer focus groups to help develop the instrument, and surveys of scientists and journalists to evaluate the items. Ratings by at least two readers assessed reliability. Variability was measured by comparing scores of 47 stories emanating from two discoveries. Results: Reader agreement on content items was good (kappa = 0.74). Consumers, scientists, and journalists were in substantial agreement about what content items should be included. Some items deemed essential by journalists appeared in very few stories. One-third of stories exaggerated the benefits of the discovery and one-third presented a balanced selection of expert opinion. Coverage of specific items varied from 11.5 percent to 84.6 percent. Conclusions: The instrument is reliable; contains items deemed important by consumers, scientists, and journalists; and detects variability.'Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Genet & Publ Policy Studies Grp, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. Holtzman, NA, Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Genet & Publ Policy Studies Grp, 550 N Broadway,Suite 511, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA.y Jun5 2003244:ISI:000183161900003o Nelkin, D\ 19944.Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal&Public Understanding of Sciencet3{ 25-31sNelkin, D. Lindee, M. S. 19952+The DNA mystique: The gene as cultural icon New York Freeman Book Nelkin, Do 200182Molecular metaphors: the gene in popular discourseNature Reviews: Genetics2 555-5594-science communication gene genetics metaphors}& Nerlich, B Clarke, D Dingwall, R 1999VO'The influence of popular cultural imagery on public attitudes towards cloning'l ("Sociological Research Online 4 (3)Electronic Journal<5science communication gene genetics metaphors cloning&http://www.socresonline.org.uk/&Nerlich, B Clarke, D Dingwall Re 2000f_Clones and Crops: The use of stock characters and word play in two debates about bioengineering{Metaphoric Symboll144e223-2394-science communication gene genetics metaphors445-469$://000178243300003,&Nerlich, B. Dingwall, R. Clarke, D. D.b[The book of life: how the completion of the Human Genome Project was revealed to the publicg Health60Times Cited: 5 Cited Reference Count: 38 ArticleThe production of a 'working draft' of the human genome was announced on 26 June 2000 at a linked US/UK press conference involving President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair. This article analyses the politicians' speeches, the accompanying press releases, with contributions from leading scientists associated with the project and British national newspaper coverage of this event. We ask why research on the human genome has not led to widespread negative reactions comparable to those provoked by cloning and GM food. Part of the answer lies in the metaphors, images, literary and cultural references used in the announcement of this development, especially by scientists and politicians attempting to steer the discourse towards public euphoria. Much of this rhetoric draws on the projected benefits for medicine and health care, particularly 'dread diseases' like cancer. Nevertheless some of the print media still focused on the 'negative' tropes of 'designer people' and on 'genetic determinism'.'Univ Nottingham, Inst Study Genet, Biorisks & Soc, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England. Nerlich, B, Univ Nottingham, Inst Study Genet, Biorisks & Soc, Univ Pk Campus, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England. Oct 200264ISI:000178243300003Nerlich, B Clarke, DD 2003VPAnatomy of a media event: how arguments clashed in the 2001 human cloning debateNew Genetics and Society221- 43-59 Abstract only(!Nerlich, Brigitte Hellsten, Iina 2004F@Genomics: shifts in metaphorical landscape between 2000 and 2003New Genetics and Society233y255-2686Neumann-Held, E.M  1998^WThe Gene is Dead - Long Live the Gene: Conceptualising the gene the Constructionist Wayi  Koslowski, P^XSociobiology and Bioeconomics. The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory Berlin Springer-Verlagl105-1379JDdevelopmental systems constructionism genes classical molecular geneNeumann-Held, Eva M 2002.'Can we find human nature in the genome?M :4Grunwald, Armin Gutmann, Mathias Neumann-Held, Eva MPJOn Human Nature: Anthropological, Biological and Philosophical Foundations Berlin Springer141-162n`Ygenes genetic determinism genetic information developmental biology developmental systems 59-77$://000181853000005\ Nordgren, A.& Metaphors in behavioral genetics("Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2003241ISI:000181853000005P188-190$://000086752200002 "Oda, L. M. Soares, B. E. C.RLGenetically modified foods: economic aspects and public acceptance in BrazilTrends in Biotechnologyv May, 2000185,ISI:000086752200002s Oyama, Susan 1985F@The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental systems and evolution  Cambridge Cambridge University Press xpds EB NCT ishb TRM WS r2F@developmental systems ontogeny constructionism information genes Oyama, Susan 2000F?Evolution's eye: A systems view of the biology-culture divide.n Durham, North Carolina Duke University Presspdevelopmental systems Pardo, Rafael Calvo, Flix 2002TMAttitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysisn&Public Understanding of Science11 Aprild155-195 F?science communication europe Eurobarometer attitudes to scienceOver the past decade, several influential papers examining the relationship between scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science have been published. The 1992 Eurobarometer has been the preferred source of data for analysis, and a number of suggestive conclusions regarding the extent and nature of the links between knowledge and attitudes have been proposed. Summated scales were built through principal component analysis of the attitudinal items and reliability analysis, but little attention has been paid to the content of the attitudinal items and to the metric and conceptual weaknesses of the scales. A more parsimonious revision of the data, carried out here, shows that the measures used are fuzzy and, as a consequence, the empirical support for some published results is very limited. We suggest that more theoretical effort should be devoted to the design of questionnaires and to the combined use of statistical exploratory techniques and qualitative analysis in the interpretation of the data. n2 'z401-433$://000171204200017& Anderlik, M. R. Rothstein, M. A.ZSPrivacy and confidentiality of genetic information: What rules for the new science?r2,Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 20012ISI:000171204200017 Anderson, A. 2002NGIn search of the Holy Grail: media discourse and the new human geneticsENew Genetics and Society213e327-337p Dec\ISI:000180938400007  Abstract onlycIt has widely been recognized that the media play a key role in framing debates about genetic issues. This paper provides an overview of the major areas of debate within the social scientific literature on media, public understanding of science and human genetics. It evaluates current approaches to assessing the role of the media in influencing public policy debates. It argues that an analysis of the strategies of news sources should occupy a central role in furthering understanding about the ways in which various social actors seek to influence public policy agendas. At present, within the field of human genetics, only a handful of researchers have systematically examined the strategies of news sources from the perspective of the sources themselves. While recent research has focused upon identifying the major sources and how they are used in science reporting, there remains much to be done in uncovering the processes of negotiation and contestation among social actors prior to issues gaining media coverage.s60Times Cited: 2 Cited Reference Count: 47 Article$://000180938400007n'Univ Plymouth, Dept Sociol, Plymouth PL4 8AA, Devon, England. Anderson, A, Univ Plymouth, Dept Sociol, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, Devon, England. 88-96$://A1990DN25800013\ Bader, R. G.TMHow Science News Sections Influence Newspaper Science Coverage - a Case-StudylJournalism Quarterly Sprl 1990671TISI:A1990DN25800013P<6Barns, Ian Schibeci, Renato Davison, Aidan Shaw, Robin 2000|v"What do you think about genetic medicine?" Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics("Science, Technology & Human Values253283-308541-559$://000225394300006mHABates, B. R. Poirot, K. Harris, T. M. Condit, C. M. Achter, P. J.sEvaluating direct-to-consumer marketing of race-based pharmacogenomics: A focus group study of public understandings of applied genomic medication&Journal of Health Communicationc60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 56 ArticleSome medical providers have advocated applied genomics, including the use of genetically linked racial phenotypes in medical practice, raising fear that race-based medication will become justified. As with other emerging medical genetic technologies, pharmaceutical companies may advertise these treatments. Researchers fear that consumers will uncritically accept pharmaceutical messages and demand the product. In this exploratory study, we examined public reactions to advertisements for applied genomic medications. A focus group methodology was employed. Participants tended to resist the message and generated warrants for doing so, indicating critical reception of the messages. Message accepters also provided warrants. Warrants for resistance and acceptance differ between self-identified racial groups. Consumers, health care providers, and pharmaceutical corporations will benefit from a better understanding of direct-to-consumer advertisements as medical communication. Our study concludes that both advocates and opponents of direct-to-consumer advertisements should recognize that potential consumers of pharmacogenomics act as critical consumers of health advertising discourse.' Ohio Univ, Sch Commun Studies, Athens, OH 45710 USA. Univ S Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 USA. Univ Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Univ Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 USA. Bates, BR, Ohio Univ, Sch Commun Studies, Lasher Hall, Athens, OH 45710 USA. batesb@ohio.eduNov-Dec 200496ISI:000225394300006331-344$://000225207000012:4Bates, B. R. Lynch, J. A. Bevan, J. L. Condit, C. A.nhWarranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research Social Science & Mediciner60Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 41 Article This paper discusses how the American public accounts for the concerns that they have about genetic research and the benefits that they foresee. We develop a general framework for discussing public claims about genetic technology based on Stephen Toulmin's model of warrants in argumentation. After a review of the results from public opinion polls about genetic research, we present a focus group study of public understandings of genetics. We outline the warrants, or publicly accepted "good reasons", that this group offers for accepting some aspects of genetic technology and for rejecting other aspects. The warrants presented by the public in their discussion of genetic research indicate that the public has a complex, informed understanding of genetic research, albeit a non-technical one. The paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of public participation in debates over genetic research and the ways that researchers and policy makers could adapt to public concerns about genetics. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.' Ohio Univ, Sch Commun Studies, Athens, OH 45701 USA. Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA. Univ Nevada, Greenspun Sch Commun, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA. Bates, BR, Ohio Univ, Sch Commun Studies, Lasher Hall, Athens, OH 45701 USA. batesb@ohio.edur Jany 2005602eISI:000225207000012e