Display options
Cite
Broer T, Pickersgill M, Deary IJ. The Movement of Research from the Laboratory to the Living Room: a Case Study of Public Engagement with Cognitive Science. Neuroethics. 2016;9:159-171doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6.
Broer, T., Pickersgill, M., & Deary, I. J. (2016). The Movement of Research from the Laboratory to the Living Room: a Case Study of Public Engagement with Cognitive Science. Neuroethics, 9159-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6
Broer, Tineke, et al. "The Movement of Research from the Laboratory to the Living Room: a Case Study of Public Engagement with Cognitive Science." Neuroethics vol. 9 (2016): 159-171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6
Broer T, Pickersgill M, Deary IJ. The Movement of Research from the Laboratory to the Living Room: a Case Study of Public Engagement with Cognitive Science. Neuroethics. 2016;9:159-171. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6. Epub 2016 Apr 28. PMID: 27429669; PMCID: PMC4927588.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Neuroethics. 2016;9:159-171. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6. Epub 2016 Apr 28.

The Movement of Research from the Laboratory to the Living Room: a Case Study of Public Engagement with Cognitive Science.

Neuroethics

Tineke Broer, Martyn Pickersgill, Ian J Deary

Affiliations

  1. Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK.
  2. Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

PMID: 27429669 PMCID: PMC4927588 DOI: 10.1007/s12152-016-9259-6

Abstract

Media reporting of science has consequences for public debates on the ethics of research. Accordingly, it is crucial to understand how the sciences of the brain and the mind are covered in the media, and how coverage is received and negotiated. The authors report here their sociological findings from a case study of media coverage and associated reader comments of an article ('Does bilingualism influence cognitive aging?') from Annals of Neurology. The media attention attracted by the article was high for cognitive science; further, as associates/members of the Centre where it was produced, the authors of the research reported here had rare insight into how the scientists responsible for the Annals of Neurology article interacted with the media. The data corpus included 37 news items and 228 readers' comments, examined via qualitative thematic analysis. Media coverage of the article was largely accurate, without merely copying the press release. Analysis of reader comments showed these to be an important resource for considering issues of import to neuroethics scholars, as well as to scientists themselves (including how science communication shapes and is shaped by ethical, epistemic, and popular discourse). In particular, the findings demonstrate how personal experiences were vital in shaping readers' accounts of their (dis)agreements with the scientific article. Furthermore, the data show how scientific research can catalyse political discussions in ways likely unanticipated by scientists. The analysis indicates the importance of dialogue between journalists, laboratory scientists and social scientists in order to support the communication of the messages researchers intend.

Keywords: Media coverage; Public engagement; Qualitative research; Science communication

References

  1. Trends Neurosci. 2006 Sep;29(9):511-7 - PubMed
  2. Public Underst Sci. 2015 Aug 11;:null - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e28416 - PubMed
  4. Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405 - PubMed
  5. Soc Sci Med. 2001 Apr;52(8):1255-68 - PubMed
  6. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jan;11(1):61-9 - PubMed
  7. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Nov;47(11):1451-8 - PubMed
  8. Public Underst Sci. 2015 Oct;24(7):878-92 - PubMed
  9. Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 31;106(3):603-7 - PubMed
  10. Am J Bot. 2009 Oct;96(10):1767-78 - PubMed
  11. EMBO Rep. 2011 Jul 01;12(7):630-6 - PubMed
  12. Ann Neurol. 2014 Jun;75(6):959-63 - PubMed
  13. Sci Commun. 2006 Sep;28(1):122-142 - PubMed
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 14;111(2):823-8 - PubMed
  15. Soc Sci Med. 2006 Feb;62(3):577-90 - PubMed
  16. Soc Sci Med. 2006 Nov;63(9):2476-88 - PubMed
  17. Sci Technol Human Values. 2015 Sep;40(5):712-743 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 29;9(10):e110830 - PubMed
  19. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127848 - PubMed
  21. J Med Ethics. 2011 Nov;37(11):698-701 - PubMed
  22. Lancet. 1998 Jun 6;351(9117):1726-7 - PubMed
  23. Neurology. 2013 Nov 26;81(22):1938-44 - PubMed
  24. Community Genet. 2006;9(3):204-10 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support