van Atteveldt Nienke M, van Aalderen-Smeets Sandra I, Jacobi Carina, Ruigrok Nel
Department of Educational Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Education and Institute Learn!, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Centre for Science Education and Talent Development (SETD), Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 12;9(8):e104780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104780. eCollection 2014.
The rapid developments in neuroscientific techniques raise high expectations among the general public and therefore warrant close monitoring of the translation to the media and daily-life applications. The need of empirical research into neuroscience communication is emphasized by its susceptibility to evoke misconceptions and polarized beliefs. As the mass media are the main sources of information about (neuro-)science for a majority of the general public, the objective of the current research is to quantify how critically and accurately newspapers report on neuroscience as a function of the timing of publication (within or outside of periods of heightened media attention to neuroscience, termed "news waves"), the topic of the research (e.g. development, health, law) and the newspaper type (quality, popular, free newspapers). The results show that articles published during neuroscience news waves were less neutral and more optimistic, but not different in accuracy. Furthermore, the overall tone and accuracy of articles depended on the topic; for example, articles on development often had an optimistic tone whereas articles on law were often skeptical or balanced, and articles on health care had highest accuracy. Average accuracy was rather low, but articles in quality newspapers were relatively more accurate than in popular and free newspapers. Our results provide specific recommendations for researchers and science communicators, to improve the translation of neuroscience findings through the media: 1) Caution is warranted during periods of heightened attention (news waves), as reporting tends to be more optimistic; 2) Caution is also warranted not to follow topic-related biases in optimism (e.g., development) or skepticism (e.g., law); 3) Researchers should keep in mind that overall accuracy of reporting is low, and especially articles in popular and free newspapers provide a minimal amount of details. This indicates that researchers themselves may need to be more active in preventing misconceptions to arise.
神经科学技术的快速发展在普通大众中引发了很高的期望,因此有必要密切监测其在媒体和日常生活应用中的转化情况。神经科学传播容易引发误解和两极分化的观点,这凸显了对其进行实证研究的必要性。由于大众媒体是大多数普通大众获取(神经)科学信息的主要来源,本研究的目的是量化报纸在报道神经科学时的批判性和准确性,这取决于出版时间(在媒体对神经科学关注度较高的时期内或之外,即“新闻浪潮”)、研究主题(如发育、健康、法律)以及报纸类型(高质量、大众、免费报纸)。结果表明,在神经科学新闻浪潮期间发表的文章中立性较低且更为乐观,但准确性并无差异。此外,文章的整体基调与准确性取决于主题;例如,关于发育的文章通常具有乐观的基调,而关于法律的文章往往持怀疑或中立态度,关于医疗保健的文章准确性最高。平均准确性相当低,但高质量报纸上的文章相对比大众报纸和免费报纸上的文章更准确。我们的研究结果为研究人员和科学传播者提供了具体建议,以改进通过媒体对神经科学研究成果的转化:1)在关注度较高的时期(新闻浪潮)要谨慎,因为报道往往更乐观;2)也要谨慎避免遵循与主题相关的乐观(如发育)或怀疑(如法律)偏见;3)研究人员应牢记报道的整体准确性较低,尤其是大众报纸和免费报纸上的文章提供的细节最少。这表明研究人员自身可能需要更积极地防止误解的产生。