How geneticists can help reporters to get their story right
Abstract
Many geneticists are disgruntled with the coverage of genetics in the mass media, yet geneticists themselves have a part to play in improving that coverage. This article aims to help geneticists to do so by explaining the forces that shape science news. It provides some specific options for reducing hype, countering genetic determinism and preventing the use of genetics to reinforce discriminatory messages, slants that many reporters are inclined to give to their articles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Scientists' publicity materials and news reports rely on racialized language and exaggerated views of race as biological.
“Other problems include reliance in scientists’ publicity materials and in news reports on racialized language and exaggerated views of race as biological [57]”
From Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences (2019) · cites this paper as [57]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences
Rosenberg, N. A., Edge, M. D., Pritchard, J. K., & Feldman, M. W. (2019) · Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health · doi:10.1093/emph/eoy036 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Brechman, J., Lee, C.-J., & Cappella, J. N. (2009) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547009332649 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
- Authors
- Condit, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Condit, Celeste M.
- ORCID
- Condit, Celeste M.
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Genetics
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 815-820
- ISSN
- 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-0064
- OpenAlex
- W1978229746
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1p01cd000242-01)
- National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG003961, HG003961-01)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Keywords
- science journalism, media hype, genetic determinism, genetic discrimination, media coverage of science, science communication
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Mass Media, Newspapers as Topic, Persuasive Communication, Public Health, Research Personnel, United States, Genetic Variation, Genetic Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
