Science writers ’ reactions to a medical ‘‘breakthrough’ ’ story

In numerous incidences, the news coverage of medical research has incited unjustified optimism or fear. The medical literature provides an archive of the scientific community’s condemnation of these misleading reports, but little is known about how they are judged by newsmakers. This study explored science writers ’ reactions to a controversial New York Times story that inflated the hopes of thousands of cancer patients. More than 60 science writers in the US, Canada, and Great Britain participated in a 12-day email discussion triggered by the Times article. We analyzed 255 of these email postings and coded (1) positive and negative critiques of the Times story, (2) references to the article’s repercussions including the creation of false hope, (3) attributions of responsibility for the resulting public misunderstanding, and (4) suggestions to improve the public’s comprehension of medical research news. The participating science writers generally responded negatively to the controversial article: 83 % of the critiques were unfavorable. In addition, the science writers in the sample were cognizant and concerned about the impact of their work on the public, and accepted the largest share of the responsibility for the false hope created by the news coverage of medical research. Finally, the suggestions offered by respondents to improve the public’s understanding of medical research news were similar to those proposed by the scientific community. Thus, some commonality exists between ho