Cited by 99Academic Publishing and Open AccessMedia Studies and CommunicationJournalism and Media Studies

Lost in Translation?: A Comparison of Cancer-Genetics Reporting in the Press Release and Its Subsequent Coverage in the Press

Open access
Brechman, Jean, Lee, Chul-joo, Cappella, Joseph N.·2009·Science Communication

Abstract

Understanding how genetic science is communicated to the lay public is of great import. To address this issue, this study examines the presentation of genetic research relating to cancer outcomes and behaviors (i.e., prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, smoking and obesity) in both the press release ( n = 23) and its subsequent news coverage ( n = 71). Data suggest that genetic discoveries are presented in a biologically deterministic and simplified manner 67.5% of the time. The introduction of deterministic language is attributed equally to both press releases and news coverage. Also, there are substantive differences between content introduced in the press release and content presented in subsequent press coverage; in fact, when two sources report on the same scientific discovery, the information is inconsistent more than 40% of the time. These findings suggest that the intermediary press release may serve as a source of distortion in the dissemination of science to the lay public.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1075547009332649

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many sources of converging evidence point to press releases as the main source of science news, including the quotes and study facts analysed from the study's data.

    “However, many sources of converging evidence point to press releases as the main source of science news,17 18 21 26 27 including the quotes and study facts analysed from our data (see supplementary section SI11).”

    From The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study (2014) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that 54.7% of central claims appeared in both press releases and news articles, supporting a substantial connection between them. But the Methods say the study excluded news articles without a traceable press release, and the Discussion calls press releases a possible source of distortion. This does not establish that they are the main source of science news generally. The citing authors’ analysis of quotes and study facts is their own, not a finding attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a study of 23 press releases and 71 associated news stories about cancer genetics, two thirds of claims in the press release were at least as deterministic as the claims in the news.

    “In a study of 23 press releases and 71 associated news stories about cancer genetics, two thirds of claims in the press release were at least as deterministic as the claims in the news.21”
  • Journalists sometimes misrepresent the uncertainties of science, for example, by presenting complex or preliminary information as being more certain than it truly is.

    “journalists sometimes do misrepresent the uncertainties of science, for example, by presenting complex or preliminary information as being more certain than it truly is (Brechman, Lee, and Cappella, 2009;Jensen, 2008;Lai, Lane, and Ruttenberg, 2009;Retzbach and Maier, 2015)”

    From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Brechman, Lee, and Cappella, 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Cappella JN Mittermaier DJ Weiner J Humphreys L Falcone T 2007 11 Framing genetic risk in print and broadcast news: A content analysis Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association Chicago, IL.
  2. Condit CM Condit DM 2001 Blueprints and recipes: Gendered metaphors for genetic medicine Journal of Medical Humanities 22 1 29 39
  3. Harvard School of Public Health 4 2006 Gene variant associated with obesity risk found with new statistical technique Press release
  4. Hubbard R Wald E 1993 Exploding the gene myth Beacon Press Boston
  5. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 8 17 2004 Other highlights in the August 18 JNCI Press release
  6. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 7 27 2005 Researchers identify gene set linked to breast cancer’s spread to lungs Press Release
  7. Translational Genomics Research Institute 8 17 2004 Study narrows search for genes putting men at increased risk for prostate cancer Press release
  8. University of Michigan Health System 10 27 2007 U-M Scientists say fused genes trigger the development of prostate cancer Press release

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brechman, J., Lee, C.-J., & Cappella, J. N.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Brechman, Jean
Venue
Science Communication
Published
2009-03-06
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
453-474
ISSN
  • 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-5470
  • 1552-8545
OpenAlex
W2051794430
Cited by
99
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
11.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • National Institutes of Health (1p50ca095856-01a1)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50-CA095856, P20CA095856)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
science journalism, press releases, media coverage, genetic determinism, oversimplification, public understanding of genetics

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