Just around the corner: rhetorics of progress and promise in genetic research

Population health AI researchers' perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study

This article reports how 18 UK and Canadian population health artificial intelligence researchers in Higher Education Institutions perceive the use of artificial intelligence systems in their research, and how this compares with their perceptions about the media portrayal of artificial intelligence systems. This is triangulated with a small scoping analysis of how UK and Canadian news articles portray artificial intelligence systems associated with health research and care. Interviewees had concerns about what they perceived as sensationalist reporting of artificial intelligence systems - a finding reflected in the media analysis. In line with Pickersgill's concept of 'epistemic modesty', they considered artificial intelligence systems better perceived as non-exceptionalist methodological tools that were uncertain and unexciting. Adopting 'epistemic modesty' was sometimes hindered by stakeholders to whom the research is disseminated, who may be less interested in hearing about the uncertainties of scientific practice, having implications on both research and policy.

Our findings, my method: Framing science in televised interviews

The public communication of science and technology largely depends on their framing in the news media, but scientists' role in this process has only been explored indirectly. This study focuses on storied accounts told by scientists when asked to present their research or provide expert advice in the course of a news interview. A total of 150 items from a current affairs talk show broadcast in the Israeli media were explored through a methodology combining narrative and conversation analysis. Using the concept of framing as originally proposed by Erving Goffman, we show that researchers use personal accounts as a way of reframing news stories introduced by the program hosts. Elements of method and rationale, which are usually considered technical and are shunned in journalistic reports, emerged as a crucial element in the accounts that experts themselves provided. The implications for framing research and science communication training are discussed.

"Is a cure in my sight?" Multi-stakeholder perspectives on phase I choroideremia gene transfer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Ocular gene transfer clinical trials are raising patient hopes for the treatment of choroideremia--a blinding degenerative retinopathy. Phase I choroideremia gene transfer trials necessitate communicating about the risks of harm and potential benefits with patients while avoiding the sensationalism that has historically undermined this field of translational medicine.

METHODS

We conducted interviews between June 2011 and June 2012 with 6 choroideremia patient advocates, 20 patients, and 15 clinicians about their hopes for benefits, perceived risks of harm, and hopes for the time frame of clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer.

RESULTS

Despite the safety focus of phase I trials, participants hoped for direct visual benefits with evident discrepancies between stakeholder perspectives about the degree of visual benefit. Clinicians and patient advocates were concerned by limited patient attention to risks of harm. Interviews revealed confusion about the time frames for the clinical implementation of choroideremia gene transfer and patient urgency to access gene transfer within a limited therapeutic window.

CONCLUSION

Differences in stakeholder perspectives about choroideremia gene transfer necessitate strategies that promote responsible communications about choroideremia gene transfer and aid in its translation. Strategies should counter historical sensationalism associated with gene transfer, promote informed consent, and honor patient hope while grounding communications in current clinical realities.

Recent rhetorical studies in public understanding of science: Multiple purposes and strengths

We review rhetorical studies of the public understanding of science that were published in journals since the last major review in this journal (1994-2011). Our review suggests that a vibrant and increasingly sophisticated body of research 1) has pursued Gross's (1994) emphasis on contextual studies and studies emphasizing judgment of scientific rhetorics, 2) is producing a growing body of work designed to develop specific strategies for scientific rhetorics, and 3) has produced a host of studies exploring science-public interactions (rather than producing sustained fora for such interactions, as Gross argued for). It has, however, 4) produced only modest independent development of rhetorical theories.

Tracking the impact of research on policy and practice: investigating the feasibility of using citations in clinical guidelines for research evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility of using research papers cited in clinical guidelines as a way to track the impact of particular funding streams or sources.

SETTING

In recent years, medical research funders have made efforts to enhance the understanding of the impact of their funded research and to provide evidence of the 'value' of investments in particular areas of research. One of the most challenging areas of research evaluation is around impact on policy and practice. In the UK, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provide clinical guidelines, which bring together current high-quality evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of clinical problems. Research referenced in these guidelines is an indication of its potential to have real impact on health policy and practice.

DESIGN

This study is based on analysis of the authorship and funding attribution of research cited in two NICE clinical guidelines: dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

RESULTS

Analysis identified that around a third of papers cited in the two NICE guidelines had at least one author based in the UK. In both cases, about half of these UK attributed papers contained acknowledgements which allowed the source of funding for the research to be identified. The research cited in these guidelines was found to have been supported by a diverse set of funders from different sectors. The study also investigated the contribution of research groups based in universities, industry and the public sector.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that there is great potential for guidelines to be used as sources of information on the quality of the research used in their development and that it is possible to track the source of the funding of the research. The challenge is in harnessing the relevant information to track this in an efficient way.

I don't need anybody to tell me what I should be doing'. A discursive analysis of maternal accounts of (mis)trust of healthy eating information

Healthy eating initiatives, and messages about what one should be eating, are prolific in contemporary British society. This paper examines mothers' talk around food and feeding to determine how trust or mistrust in healthy eating information is established and rationalised. Discursive analysis of interviews with mothers (N=12, aged 25-45) isolated two prominent discursive positions that mothers established with regards to healthy eating messages. First, they legitimised an extensive mistrust of healthy eating information and messages on the grounds that they are at best, inconsistent and at worst, grossly contaminated by stakeholder bias. Second, and in contrast, they established (most) mothers as having a wholesome, privileged, and entirely sufficient instinctive knowledge about how to feed their children. However, an out-group of failing mothers, deemed to have inadequate nutritional knowledge, was also formulated. Mothers talk thus established a central dilemma whereby to accept nutritional advice compromised a good mothering identity. We argue that nutritional messages and interventions should be sensitive to this dilemma so that they facilitate, rather than threaten, a good mothering identity.