c o m m e n ta r y Science communication reconsidered Tania Bubela1,2*, Matthew C Nisbet3, Rick Borchelt4, Fern Brunger5, Cristine Critchley6, Edna Einsiedel7, Gail Geller8–10, Anil Gupta11, Jürgen Hampel12, Robyn Hyde-Lay2,13, Eric W Jandciu14, S Ashley Jones15, Pam Kolopack16, Summer Lane2, Tim Lougheed17, Brigitte Nerlich18, Ubaka Ogbogu2,19, Kathleen O’Riordan20,21, Colin Ouellette2, Mike Spear13, Stephen Strauss22, Thushaanthini Thavaratnam23, Lisa Willemse24 & Timothy Caulfield25–27 As new media proliferate and the public’s trust and engagement in science are influenced by industry involvement © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. in academic research, an interdisciplinary workshop provides some recommendations to enhance science communication. S cience communication receives significant attention from policy makers, research institutions, practitioners and scholars1,2. It is a complex and contentious topic that encom- passes a spectrum of issues from the factual dissemination of scientific research to new models of public engagement whereby lay per- sons are encouraged to participate in science debates and policy. Over the past several decades, the complexi- ties of science communication have been mag- nified by institutional, social and technological Jean-Francois Podevin/Science Photo Library change. Science increasingly is interdisciplin- ary, bureaucratic, global in scale, problem- based and dependent on private funding. This latter trend, in particular, raises issues of pub- lic trust in science, which studies have shown is diminished by researcher and institutional affiliation with the private sector, especially in the area of biomedicine3,4. Technology has also transformed the nature of the media system, creating an abundance of cable television, Internet and digital resources Science communication faces stiff challenges with the blurring of boundaries between public and for the public to inform themselves about sci- private science and the fragmentation of audiences. ence and its social implications. With these new outlets, highly motivated individuals have a greater ability to learn about science negative impacts, such as demands for inap- communication: public engagement and sci- and to become involved in collective decision- propriately hyped medical services6,7. ence journalism. These two main themes are making5. Yet media fragmentation also means With this convergence of social forces and interrelated; the dissemination of knowledge that if individuals lack an interest in science, journalistic challenges in mind, we convened is one part of a multifaceted approach toward they can very easily avoid science media alto- an interdisciplinary workshop on the chang- increasing public involvement in science issues gether. There is a general concern that reduced ing nature of science communication, focusing and decision-making. We conclude with spe- quality of reporting by some media sources, specifically on biotech, biomedicine and genet- cific recommendations for moving forward. primarily television and online, may have ics. What follows is a discussion of the ques- tions and issues addressed by experts from the Models and assumptions guiding science *A list of affiliations appears at the end of US, the UK, Canada, Germany and Australia. communication the paper. Our goal is to focus attention on key areas of Despite increasing attention to new direc- e-mail: nisbet@american.edu expert agreement about two aspects of science tions in public engagement, a still-dominant 514 volume 27 number 6 june 2009 nature biotechnology  C O M M E N TA R Y assumption among many scientists and policy- ence decisions, perceive scientists and their issue is ‘framed’ in news coverage. Frames are makers is that when controversies over science organizations as more responsive to their con- interpretative packages and storylines that help occur, ignorance is at the root of public oppo- cerns, and say afterwards that they are moti- communicate why an issue might be a problem, sition. Concerns are raised about the state of vated to become active on the issue if provided who or what might be responsible and what science education and scientific literacy more a future opportunity to do so15,16. should be done25. Frames are used by lay pub- generally8,9. Science communication initiatives Advocates for expanding these public lics as interpretative schemas to make sense of are therefore directed at filling in the ‘deficit’ in engagement initiatives argue that consultation and discuss an issue; by journalists to condense knowledge, with the hope that if members of exercises often come too late (usually just as complex events into interesting and appealing the public only understood the scientific facts, a science product, such as nanotechnology, is news reports; by policy-makers to define policy they would be more likely to see the issues as being introduced to the market), that lay input options and reach decisions; and by scientists experts do. The strategy is thus to inform the is not given enough weight in decision-making to communicate the relevance of their findings. public by way of popular science outlets such as and that under these conditions the consulta- In each of these contexts, frames simplify com- television documentaries, science magazines, tion process only serves a public relations plex issues by lending greater weight to certain newspaper science coverage and more recently function. They argue that engagement needs considerations and arguments over others26. science websites and blogs. to move ‘upstream’ to when science or technol- Framing is an unavoidable reality of the sci- Of course, some knowledge about science, ogy is in its formative stage, so that relevant ence communication process. and especially its role in society, is fundamen- publics can have a more meaningful say in mat- There is growing awareness among science tally important for a public that bears the risks ters of ownership, regulation, uses, benefits and organizations that if they want to be more and benefits of scientific and technological risks17–19. Given this, the media could play an effective at using the media to communicate © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. development10. Yet the narrow emphasis of the important role in informing the public about with a diversity of audiences, they need to deficit approach does not recognize that knowl- early-stage science policy debates and avenues switch the frame—or interpretative lens—by edge is only one factor among many influences for public involvement, potentially raising which they communicate about a scientific that are likely to guide how individuals reach awareness and participation20. Yet a genuine topic, such as evolution, stem cell research or judgments, with ideology, social identity and role for lay participants’ recommendations can nanotechnology27. Instead of relying on per- trust often having stronger impacts10. The come only with the realization that sometimes sonal experience or anecdotal observation, deficit model also overlooks the fact that, given an engaged public might reach collective deci- it is necessary to carry out careful audience the abundance of competing content choices, sions that go against the self-interests of sci- research to determine which frames work traditional science media outlets reach only a entists. For example, one outcome of a recent across intended audiences. Communication is relatively small audience of already knowledge- consultation forum on nanotechnology was both an art and a science. For example, the US able science enthusiasts. In addition, on certain that several lay participants were motivated to National Academies (Washington, DC) used topics, such as cloning, the public is likely to form an advocacy group to act as a watchdog focus groups and polling to inform the struc- draw strongly upon the portrayals featured over research in their community15. ture of a written report about the teaching of in entertainment film and television, science evolution and to plan publicity efforts. Their fiction novels and other forms of popular Framing the message research indicated that an effective storyline culture11–13. The deficit model blames failures in science for translating the relevance of evolutionary A decade ago, a new ‘public engagement’ or communication on inaccuracies in news cov- science for students was one emphasizing the interactive model emerged—one that empha- erage and the irrational beliefs of the public, connection to advances in modern medicine. sizes deliberative contexts in which a variety of but it ignores several realities about audiences Contrary to their expectations, the research stakeholders can participate in a dialog so that and how they use the media to make sense of concluded that an alternative frame empha- a plurality of views can inform research priori- science. First, individuals are naturally ‘cogni- sizing recent court decisions did not provide ties and science policy1. These efforts toward tive misers’: if they lack a motivation to pay nearly as effective a message28. two-way dialog with lay publics have taken close attention to science debates, they will rely Yet turning to audience research requires a various forms, such as deliberative polls, citizen heavily on mental shortcuts, values and emo- delicate balance on the part of science orga- juries, consensus conferences and cafés scien- tions to make sense of an issue, often in the nizations. Any reframing of an issue needs tifiques. As a participatory process, each form absence of knowledge21,22. Second, as part of to remain true to the state of the underlying might place a different weight on ‘extended this miserly nature, individuals are drawn to science. For example, in promoting human peer review,’ whereby the ‘publics,’ or groups news sources that confirm and reinforce their embryonic stem cell research around the ‘hope of individuals who are affected by the prod- pre-existing beliefs. This tendency, of course, for cures’, some advocates have given the false ucts of science, are invited to become part of a has been facilitated by the fragmentation of the impression that available therapies are just community of evaluators and decision-makers. media and the rise of ideologically slanted news a few years away, an interpretation that puts Initiatives also vary in terms of how partici- outlets23. Third, opinion leaders other than public trust at risk. Similarly, some industry pants are asked for feedback, how much their scientists, such as religious leaders, nongov- advocates have re-framed food biotech as a feedback influences the final decisions and the ernmental organizations and politicians, have moral quest to improve global food security, timing of consultation14. been successful in formulating their messages but their promise of ‘putting an end to world Studies find that lay participants not only about science in a manner that connects with hunger’ dramatically oversimplifies a complex learn directly about the technical aspects of key stakeholders and publics but at times might problem29. a subject, such as food biotech or biomedi- directly contradict scientific consensus or cut cal research, but also learn about the social, against the interests of organized science24. The challenges of science journalism ethical and economic implications of the sci- Under these conditions, audiences will pay The media not only influence public per- ence. Participants also feel more confident and more attention to certain dimensions of a sci- ceptions but also shape and reflect the efficacious in their ability to participate in sci- ence debate over others depending on how an policy debate30. Few decisions are made by nature biotechnology volume 27 number 6 june 2009 515  C O M M E N TA R Y policymakers and stakeholders without the A further source of hype may lie in errors may already be leading to individual and social media in mind. Given this role and influence, of omission—what is left out of media harm. The public has access to commercially there have long been concerns about distortion narratives34,44. There is a lack of reporting available genetic tests marketed directly to con- and hype in news coverage of biomedicine and on funding sources for research and potential sumers, which provide health information in biotech. The orientation toward hype is viewed conflicts of interest, information essential for the form of probabilistic risk factors50,51, and internationally by many scientists, ethicists, the lay public to assess the credibility of the to as-yet-unapproved stem cell therapies in policymakers and government officials as the research45,46 and which group of experts to jurisdictions with lower regulatory standards52. primary shortcoming of the media. trust. Public opinion surveys indicate a high This raises important questions about the roles In general, there is a stable baseline level of degree of trust in scientists generally and uni- and responsibilities of the media. media coverage of biomedicine and biotech. versity scientists specifically, but this trust Much of this news attention is driven by a small declines when members of the public are Media roles and responsibilities number of prestigious and highly influential asked their impression of industry scientists3. Many academic articles, editorials and reports scientific journals, with science framed in Comfort with a technology increases with pub- draw on findings about errors of omission this coverage in terms of social progress and lic trust in regulatory authorities and govern- and accuracy to recommend best practices economic growth31–33. Numerous studies of ment. In fact, unless a science issue is contested and checklists for journalists53–55. But do such media content have shown that coverage in by rival cultural authorities, such as religious endeavors confront the realities of science newspapers is surprisingly accurate, with few or political leaders, the public tends to defer journalism and other news beats? The most errors of commission31,34. Assessing accuracy strongly to the expertise of university and gov- important issue may not necessarily be con- in the reporting of a single study, however, does ernment scientists47. tent, but rather how the research is framed. In © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. not address whether the coverage contextual- Details of methods and study design (espe- this regard, it is critical to understand the fac- izes where the study fits within an emerging cially for clinical trials), risks and timelines for tors that shape the dominant interpretations body of knowledge, drawing comparisons to the delivery of benefits are also underreported. in news coverage. other studies or expert views. Thus, as a caveat, Risks are often underreported because of the First, there is often a fundamental discon- accuracy in reporting and the dissemination difficulties of conveying probabilistic infor- nect between how scientists and journalists of high-quality evidence are not necessarily mation, which is inadequately understood by interpret and describe the research process. synonymous33. most journalists and by the general public31,34. For example, scientific papers are relentlessly In regard to perceptions of coverage, contrary However, it is not just probabilistic risks that quantitative, whereas media articles are often to conventional wisdom, research has consis- are underplayed but also any broader discus- based on humanized accounts designed to tently shown that most scientists are satisfied sion of social and ethical risks of the research. connect with lay readers. Scientific articles are with the media coverage of their own research Equally of concern is the lack of discussion aimed at a narrow specialist audience, whereas and are more likely to be critical of science cover- about realistic timelines for the delivery of media articles are aimed at a broader audience. age generally35. Research similarly suggests that benefits arising from what, in most cases, is As a result, journalistic accounts are based on perceptions of bias in the coverage of biotech still early-stage research. Omitting timelines personal anecdotes provided by researchers or vary depending on a stakeholder’s connection may produce an impression in the public’s by individuals who may directly benefit from and personal commitment to the topic36. mind that significant therapeutic benefits are the research, such as affected individuals or Studies have shown that hype in the media is imminent—the lay public and experts have members of affected families. Without such most likely to originate with researchers using very different perceptions of timelines. This is connections, science stories are less likely to metaphors associated with breakthroughs37 particularly dangerous in regard to stem cell be published in competition with the news of when in reality their research is one more incre- research where people are desperate to gain the day. mental piece of a complex scientific endeavor. access to stem cell therapies or ‘miracle cures’. New media are also fundamentally chang- Prominent scientists certainly contribute The caveat about these previous content ing the nature of science communication. The to the creation of overly positive or negative analysis studies is that the majority have con- role of the Internet as a major source of bio- expectations38. Numerous commentators have centrated on the print media, and primarily just medical and science information for the public remarked that the media, scientists, the public the science beat, ignoring the fact that the media has both positive and negative consequences. and other interest groups can become complicit are not homogeneous. This approach ignores Traditional media websites allow journalists in generating a ‘cycle of hype’39. The cycle is the degree to which local and national television to connect readers with source information driven by enthusiastic researchers facing pres- news broadcasts, and increasingly the Internet, through direct links to research or patient sures from their research institutions, funders are now primary sources of public affairs sites and articles. The expanded layout of web and industry; by the desire of institutions and information for the public48. Studies have also pages may address concerns about errors of journals to bolster their profiles; by a profit- tended to focus narrowly on science journalists, omission, as more quantitative or probabilis- driven media; and by the need of individual but science debates receive their greatest atten- tic information may be provided in sidebars or journalists to define events as newsworthy39,40. tion when they shift from being covered just by graphics but only if the effort is made to pro- As one result of these factors, research has these specialists to become the focus of political vide this sometimes labor-intensive material. shown that positive results are more likely to journalists, commentators and pundits. Under Special online comment sections allow readers be published41, whereas studies that refute these conditions, the image of science morphs to instantly contest or correct information con- previously published research are less likely from a focus on discoveries packaged as prog- tained in a story. Scientists and science jour- to gain attention. For example, the discovery ress, promise and technical background to a nalists who double as bloggers provide readers of the ‘gay gene’ was published in Nature and new emphasis on conflict and dramatic claims with background and context about special- received considerable media attention42,43, but about risks and ethics29,49. ized areas of research. Science blogs create a a study refuting these findings received limited This difference in perception, and the hype dialog with readers, merging online interaction press coverage43. derived from errors of omission and framing, with real-world socializing at cafés scientifiques 516 volume 27 number 6 june 2009 nature biotechnology  C O M M E N TA R Y and other informal settings. Science bloggers In this context, clarification about the goals Internet audiences, if organizations want to frequently vet false claims made in the media and assumptions of science communication broaden their reach when producing science or in policy debates and increasingly serve as is required, recognizing the complexity and content online, they need to find ways to facili- important sources for journalists. variety of issues to be communicated. Current tate incidental exposure, gaining the attention However, much of the information on initiatives toward public education and involve- of key publics at places on the web where they the Internet comes from sources other than ment are presented as representing democratic are not actively looking for science informa- the mainstream media or scientist bloggers, reforms and being more inclusionary than past tion. There also will need to be laws protecting and much of this may be of dubious quality. efforts, yet remain based on the deficit model, consumers from false or hyped claims on web- Corporate information sources generally are which research has shown to be insufficient. sites that market health services and products little more than direct-to-consumer advertis- On this matter, then, there needs to be con- directly to the public. ing for products, services or both. For example, tinued investment in public dialog initiatives, Much as we have ever-improving mea- nutrigenomic testing services offered on the such as deliberative forums and consensus sures of public opinion about science and Internet are often tied to the sale of nutriceu- conferences. Yet, importantly, the focus of an increasing number of survey data sources ticals and other products56,57. Only recently these deliberative exercises should be an hon- and studies to reference, there also needs have corporations begun to take advantage of est effort at relationship- and trust-building58 to be investment in the systematic tracking the social media properties of the web, entering rather than persuasion, with mechanisms for of news and cultural indicators, including into a dialog with stakeholders and publics via actively incorporating the input of lay partici- traditional news outlets but also talk radio, specially created sites that feature blogs, scientist pants into decision-making59. late-night satirical programming, religious profiles and discussion sections (see Johnson When it comes to effectively working with media, the web and new documentary genres © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. & Johnson’s (Bridgewater, NJ, USA) corporate media organizations to engage key audiences, as well as entertainment television and film. blog (http://jnjbtw.com), YouTube channel it is necessary to recognize the importance of Each of these media zones may constitute a (http://www.youtube.com/user/JNJhealth) framing as well as the differing assumptions different cultural context in which the public and Facebook page (http://www.facebook. and imperatives of scientists, journalists and will interpret science. com/ADHDMoms)). Other sites cater to spe- key publics. Public trust and the perception of At journalism schools and news organiza- cial interest groups—for example, creationist media portrayals will vary by an individual’s tions, the development of a new ‘science pol- or anti–stem cell research websites on the one social identity and values. Science communi- icy’ beat should be encouraged. This will fill in hand and atheist or patient advocacy groups cation efforts should therefore be supported the gaps between the technical backgrounders on the other—and are intended to strategically by careful audience research, such as that done preferred by science writers and the conflict frame news coverage and/or the policy debate. by the National Academies on evolution. This emphasis of political reporters, providing Science blogs also engage in strategic framing, strategy does not mean engaging in false spin important background for debates on science with some of the most popular science bloggers or hype, but rather involves drawing upon policy. In this context, discussion of science blending discussion of science with ideologi- research to explore alternative storylines, meta- as a social institution could include funding cally driven commentary on politics or religion. phors and examples that more effectively com- structures, public-private institutional rela- These popular blog sites become echo chambers municate both the nature and the relevance of tionships and commercialization. An open reinforcing deficit-model assumptions about a scientific topic, such as human embryonic public discussion of the blurring public- the public, singling out science literacy as the stem cell research. private divide in science could only enhance golden key to winning public support and to Graduate students, as the future spokespeo- public trust. eroding religious belief. ple and decision-makers at science institutions, Finally, if there is a major threat to science Finally, the greatest challenge to science should be taught about the social and political journalism, it is that science journalists are los- communication online remains simply reach- context of science and how to communicate ing their jobs at for-profit news organizations. ing audiences. The availability of science infor- with the media and a diversity of publics. The Some suggest that scientists-as-bloggers might mation from credible sources online does not latter includes an emphasis on the importance be able to fill the gap61, yet for reasons reviewed mean the public will use it. Even more than of meaningful public dialog initiatives as well earlier, this is unlikely to be an effective solu- with the traditional media, if people lack an as of relationship-building with journalists and tion. New models of foundation-, university- interest in science content on the web, they can editors60. There is a danger, however, of this or government-supported science journalism very easily ignore it. This has implications for type of public engagement emphasis becom- are needed, with these online digital formats the public’s degree of engagement with science ing too conflated with marketing and public blending professional reporting with user- policy debates. relations. generated content and discussion. The wide-ranging factors contributing to Recommendations and challenges media hype and errors (largely of omission) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The proliferation of information sources com- need to be more explicitly recognized so as to The workshop was supported by grants from Genome Canada (grant no. G53400000 to T. Caulfield, bined with increased industrial involvement allow science institutions and media organi- E. Einsiedel, P. Phillips and M. Veeman), The Stem Cell in scientific research raise the issue of public zations to formulate appropriately informed Network (to T. Caulfield, E. Einsiedel and trust and engagement with science. The pri- communication policies. B.M. Knoppers) and The Advanced Food and mary concerns are the blurring of boundar- To enhance our understanding of science Materials Network (grant no. 18G to T. Caulfield and D. Castle). We thank N. Hawkins at the Health ies between public and private science and communication in the context of new media, Law Institute (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) for the fragmentation of audiences. Science com- the focus of research on science communica- administrative support. munication, therefore, remains driven by an tion should be expanded to include online ever-more-complex relationship between insti- and digital media, while recognizing the con- 1. House of Lords. Science and Society (House of Lords, London, 2000). <http://www.parliament.the-stationery- tutions, stakeholders, the media and a diversity tinued agenda-setting nature of traditional office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801. of publics. news sources. Given the fragmented nature of htm>. nature biotechnology volume 27 number 6 june 2009 517  C O M M E N TA R Y 2. The Royal Society. Factors Affecting Science Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 40. Bubela, T. Clin. Genet. 70, 445–450 (2006). Communication: A Survey of Scientists and Engineers London, 2004). 41. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R. & Rees, R. Control. (The Royal Society, London, 2006). <http://royalsociety. 19. Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgion, N. Public Underst. Sci. Clin. Trials 19, 159–166 (1998). org/page.asp?id=3180 2>. 16, 345–364 (2007). 42. Conrad, P. & Markens, S. Health 5, 373–390 3. Critchley, C.R. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 309–327 20. Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. Polit. Behav. 28, 175–192 (2001). (2008). (2006). 43. Petersen, A. J. Commun. Inq. 23, 163–182 (1999). 4. United Kingdom Research Councils. UK Public 21. Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy (Harper, 44. Mountcastle-Shah, E. et al. Sci. Commun. 24, 458– Attitudes to Science, 2008: A Survey (RCUK, Swindon, New York, 1957). 478 (2003). 2008). <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/ 22. Popkin, S. The Reasoning Voter (University of Chicago 45. Cook, D.M., Boyd, E.A., Grossmann, C. & Bero, L.A. rcuk/scisoc/pas08.pdf>. Press, Chicago, 1991). PLoS One 2, e1266 (2007). 5. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/decoding- 23. Mutz, D. in Red and Blue Nation, vol. 1 (eds. Nivola, 46. McComas, K.A. & Simone, L.M. Sci. Commun. 24, your-health/>. P. & Brady, D.W.) 222–263 (The Brookings Institution, 395–419 (2003). 6. Orkin, S.H. & Motulsky, A.G. Report and Washington, DC, 2006). 47. Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M.C. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the NIH 24. Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. Science 316, 56 (2007). 19, 24–52 (2007). Investment in Research on Gene Therapy (National 25. Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. Am. J. Sociol. 95, 1–37 48. <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news- Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 1995). (1989). audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources> <http://www.nih.gov/news/panelrep.html>. 26. Scheufele, D.A.J. Communication 49, 103–122 49. Jasanoff, S. Nature 450, 33 (2007). 7. Stockdale, A. Sociol. Health Illn. 21, 579–596 (1999). 50. Gollust, S.E., Wilfond, B.S. & Hull, S.C. Genet. Med. (1999). 27. Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. Scientist 21, 39–44 5, 332–337 (2003). 8. National Science Foundation. Science and Technology: (2007). 51. Mayo Clinic Staff. Genetic testing you can order Public Attitudes and Public Understanding (National 28. Labov, J.B. & Kline Pope, B. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, online. Women’s Health (Mayo Foundation for Science Board, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 1998). 20–24 (2008). Medical Education and Research, 26 March 9. UK Office of Science and Technology Science and 29. Nisbet, M.C. & Huge, M. Int. J. Press/Politics 11, 2, 2008). <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ the Public. A Review of Science Communication 3–40 (2006). genetic-testing/GA00058>. and Attitudes to Science in Britain (Wellcome Trust, 30. Caulfield, T., Bubela, T. & Murdoch, C. Genet. Med. 9, 52. Lau, D. et al. Cell Stem Cell 3, 591–594 (2008). London, 2000). 850–855 (2007). 53. Blum, D., Knudson, M. & Marantz Henig, R. (eds.). © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. 10. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 55–74 31. Bubela, T. & Caulfield, T. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 170, A Field Guide for Science Writers. (Oxford University (2004). 1399–1407 (2004). Press, Oxford, UK, 2005). 11. Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M. & O’Riordan, K. 32. Nisbet, M.C. & Lewenstein, B.V. Sci. Commun. 23, 54. Schwitzer, G. et al. PLoS Med. 2, e215 (2005). Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to 359–391 (2002). 55. Thompson, L. in Genes and Human Self-Knowledge Science Practice (Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2007). 33. Durant, J., Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. Biotechnology in the (eds. Weir, R., Lawrence, S.C. & Fales, E.) 104–121 12. Nisbet, M.C. & Goidel, K. Public Underst. Sci. 16, Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook (Michigan State (University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, 421–440 (2007). University Press, Lansing, Michigan, USA, 1998). 1994). 13. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D.D. & Dingwall, R. Soc. Res. 34. Holtzman, N.A. et al. Community Genet. 8, 133–144 56. Bubela, T. & Taylor, B. Health Law Rev. 16, 39–47 Online 4 (1999) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/ (2005). (2008). socresonline/4/3/Nerlich.htm>. 35. Peters, H.P. et al. Sci. Commun. 321, 204–205 57. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Nutrigenetic 14. Einsiedel, E. Public engagement and dialogue: a (2008). Testing: Tests Purchased from Four Web Sites Mislead research review. in Handbook of Public Communication 36. Gunther, A.C. & Schmitt, K. J. Commun. 54, 55–70 Consumers (GAO-06–977T, 2006). <http://www.gao. on Science and Technology (eds. Bucchi, M. & Smart, (2004). gov/products/GAO-06–977T>. B.) 173–184 (Routledge, London, 2008). 37. Nerlich, B. in Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage 58. Yarborough, M., Fryer-Edwards, K., Geller, G. & Sharp, 15. Powell, M. & Kleinman, D.L. Public Underst. Sci. 17, Patterns (eds. Schmid, H.J. & Handl, S.) (Mouton de R.R. Acad. Med. (in the press). 329–348 (2008). Gruyter, Berlin, in the press). 59. Borchelt, R. & Hudson, K. Sci. Prog. Spring/Summer: 16. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q. & Tourney, C.P. Sci. 38. Nerlich, B. & Halliday, C. Sociol. Health Illn. 29, 46–65 78–81 (2008). Commun. 30, 209–235 (2008). (2007). 60. Geller, G., Bernhardt, B.A., Rodgers, J.E. & Holtzman, 17. Wynne, B. Community Genet. 9, 211–220 (2006). 39. Caulfield, T. Trends Biotechnol. 22, 337–339 N.A. Genet. Med. 7, 198–205 (2005). 18. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-through Science: Why (2004). 61. Brumfield, G. Nature 458, 274–277 (2008). 1School of Public Health and 2Health Law Institute, Law Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3School of Communication, American University, Washington, DC, USA. 4Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA. 5Division of Community Health & Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. 6Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. 7Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8Berman Institute of Bioethics and 9Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 10Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 11Applied Research and Analysis Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 12Department for Sociology of Technology and Environment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 13Genome Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 14Science Journalism Research Group, School of Journalism, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 15Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 16Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 17Canadian Science Writers Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 18Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 19Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 20Centre for Material Digital Culture, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. 21ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), Institute for Advanced Studies, County South, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. 22Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 23Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 24Stem Cell Network, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 25Health Law Institute, 26Faculty of Law and 27School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 518 volume 27 number 6 june 2009 nature biotechnology