Regenerative Medicine in Brazilian Television News: Storytelling and Public Engagement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.96.12487Keywords:
public understanding of science; public engagement in science; TV science news; storytelling; regenerative medicine; cell-based therapy.Abstract
Public access to media contributes to public understandings of science and medicine. This paper explores patterns in television coverage on Brazilian regenerative medicine, as they are presented in You Tube videos that reproduce some of the main recent scientific and medical news in TV national or regional programmes regularly broadcast at peak times. The study builds upon the coproduction approach to civic epistemologies in an emerging economy – i.e. the way the wider public makes sense of public policies and demands proof of their validity, as well as, verification of their implementation. The coproduction approach is discussed in relation to two main of its analytical concepts: the public understanding of science and public engagement in science. Using textual analysis, the article chooses selected narratives on scientific sense-making processes according to the representations of reporters, scientists, as well as, patients and their families. Among other, similarities are found between global and local reporting of scientific and medical news in the videos studied: news segments validate benefits while downplaying uncertainties and legal, ethical and social concerns. Sense-making in TV news coverage is based on what can be defined as reductionist imaginaries of science and medicine. Also, news contents transmit a top-down communication model that influences the shaping of public understandings
References
. Author (2011a) Pesquisas e terapias com células-tronco: governança, visões sociais e o debate no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: E-Papers.
. Author (2011b) Pesquisas com Células-Tronco no Brasil: Perspectivas do Progresso Científico e dos Conhecimentos Especializados e Leigos. Revista Brasileira de Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 2, p. 15-31, jul-dez.
. Author (2020) Enquadramentos na medicina regenerativa: os relatos recentes na imprensa brasileira. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação e Inovação em Saúde, Rio de Janeiro, v. 14, n. 4, p. 942-959, 17 dez. 2020b. http://dx.doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v14i4.1966.
. Alexa (2020) Top 500 Sites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites ( accessed 3.1. 2020).
. Ahmed S and Bae Y (2016) Dendritic Cell-based Immunotherapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: from Bench to Bedside. Immune Network 16 (1):44-51.
. Amarasekara I and Grant W (2019) Exploring the YouTube science communication gender gap: A sentiment analysis. Public Understanding of Science 28 (1): 68-84.
. Ardèvol-Abreu A and Gil de Zúñiga H (2016) Effects of Editorial Media Bias Perception and Media Trust on the Use of Traditional, Citizen, and Social Media News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 94 (3): 703-724.
. Becerra M (2014) Medios de comunicación: América Latina a contramano. Revista Nueva Sociedad 249:62-74.
. Becker B and Gonzalez C (2009) The past and the future of Brazilian television news. Journalism 10 (1): 45–68.
. Bharadwaj A (2013) Ethic of consensibility, subaltern ethicality: the clinical application of embryonic stem cells in India. BioSocieties (8): 25–40.
. Blue G (2018) Science communication is culture: foregrounding ritual in the public communication of science. Science Communication 41 (2): 243–253.
. Bortz G et al. (2019) Construção das terapias com células-tronco na Argentina: regulação, gestão de riscos e políticas de inovação. Sociologias [online] 21 (50):116-155.
. Bubela T et al. (2012) Is belief larger than fact: Expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research. BMC Medicine 10: 133–143.
. Bussu S et al. (eds.) (2014) The best of Sciencewise reflections on public dialogue. London: Sciencewise.
. Carvalho G (2016) A picture of the public media research in Brazil. Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação 39 (3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-5844201638 (accessed 11.5.2020).
. Castell S et al. (2014) Public Attitudes to Science 2014. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
. Castelfranchi Y et al. (2014) Guerra, ansiedade, otimismo e triunfo: um estudo sobre a ciência no principal telejornal brasileiro. Journal of Science Communication 13(03): A01.
. Caulfield T and Fahy D (2016) Science, celebrities and public engagement. Issues in Science and Technology 32 (4): 24-26.
. CGEE (2017) A ciência e a tecnologia no olhar dos brasileiros: Percepcão Pública da C&T no Brasil 2015. Brasília: CGEE.
.CGEE (2020) Percepcão Pública da C&T no Brasil 2019. Available at: https://www.cgee.org.br/web/percepcao (accessed 22.4.2020).
.Cona L (2020) The Cost of Stem Cell Therapy in 2020. Available at: https://www.dvcstem.com/post/stem-cell-therapy-cost-2020 (accessed 25.4. 2020).
. Cooper M and Waldby C (2014) Clinical Labour: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
. Da Matta R (2015) Brasileirismos: Além do jornalismo, aquém da antropologia e quase ficção. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Rocco.
. Da Silva Ribeiro F and Massarani L (2010) Pandemic on the air: a case study on the coverage of new influenza A/H1N1 by Brazilian prime time TV news. Journal of Science Communication 9(3) Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/03/Jcom0903%282010%29A03.pdf (accessed 20.4. 2020).
. Davies S et al. (2019) Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication 18 (5) Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/18/05/JCOM_1805_2019_A01 (accessed 13.1. 2020).
. Davies SR and Horst M (2016) Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillam.
. De Semir V (2010) Science Communication & Science Journalism. Media For Science Forum. Science Communication Observatory Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. Available at: https://www.observatorio-acuicultura.es/sites/default/files/images/adjuntos/libros/science_comunication.pdf (accessed 2.3.2020).
. Fahy D and Lewestein B (2014) Scientists in popular culture: the making of celebrities. In: Bucchi M and Trench B(eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London and New York: Routledge, pp.57-77.
. Faulkner A (2016) Opening the gateways to market and adoption of regenerative medicine? The UK case in context. Journal of Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering 11 (3): 321-330.
. Finkler W and León B (2019) The power of storytelling and videos: a visual rhetoric for science communication. Journal of Science Communication 18 (5). Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/18/05/JCOM_1805_2019_A02 (accessed 15.4.2020).
. Galán Fajardo E and Rueda Laffond JC (2014) Cómo contar la historia. Estrategias de proximidad en la televisión argentina. Revista de Pensamiento e Investigación Social 14 (3):23-47.
. Gerhards J and Schäfer M (2009) Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science 18 (4): 437–451.
. Goldberg J et al. (2017) The use of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage repair and regeneration: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopedic Surgery and Research 12, 39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0534-y (accessed 24.4.2020).
. Halpern M and O´Rourke M (2020) Power in science communication collaborations. Journal of Science Communication 19 (4) Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/19/04/JCOM_1904_2020_C01/JCOM_1904_2020_C02
(accessed 5.8.2020).
. Helms Mills, J. and Mills, A. (2000) Rules, Sensemaking, Formative Contexts, and Discourse in the Gendering of Organizational Culture. In: Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 55-70.
. Hegan S (2005) The Myth of Perfection: The Image of TV-Globo Newscasters. Brazilian Journalism Research 2 (1): 97–120.
. Hildreth C (2020) Cost of Stem Cell Therapy and Why It’s So Expensive. BioInformant. Available at: https://bioinformant.com/cost-of-stem-cell-therapy/ (accessed 15.4.2020).
. Hilfinger Mesias A (2002) Transnational Health Resources, Practices, and Perspectives: Brazilian Immigrant Women’s Narratives. Journal of Immigrant Health 4 (4) :183-200.
. Horst M (2013) A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication 35 (6): 758–779.
IBGE (2011) Pesquisa Nacional por amostra de domicílios- Síntese de indicadores. Brasília: IBGE.
. Irwin A et al. (2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 43(1): 118–135.
. Irwin A and Michael M (2003) Science, Social theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
. Jasanoff S (2006) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princenton: Princeton University Press.
. Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Milton Park: Routledge.
. Johnson K et al. (2012) A Stem Cell–Based Approach to Cartilage Repair. Science 11 May 2012: 336 (6082): 717-721.
. Joubert M et al.(2019) Storytelling: the soul of science communication. Journal of Science Communication 18 (5). Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/18/05/JCOM_1805_A02 ( accessed 24.5. 2020).
.Kamenova K and Caulfield T (2015) Stem cell hype: Media portrayal of therapy translation. Science Translational Medicine 7 (278): 278-282.
.Kamenova K (2017) Media portrayal of stem cell research: towards a normative model for science communication. Asian Bioethics Review 9 (3): 199–209.
.Kreimer P and Vessuri H (2018) Latin American science, technology, and society: A historical and reflexive approach. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 1 (1): 17–37.
. Lima Barbosa R (2019) A pessoa com o diagnóstico de uma condição genética como informante-chave do campo das doenças raras - uma perspectiva pela sociologia do diagnóstico. Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 24 (10) Available at:https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232019001003627&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt (accessed 30.4.2020).
. Listerman T (2010) Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: international comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understanding of Science 19 (1):5–15.
. Luz MT (2003) Novos Saberes e Práticas em Saúde Coletiva. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec.
. Lynch J et al. (2014) Bridging Science and Journalism: Identifying the Role of Public Relations in the Construction and Circulation of Stem Cell Research Among Laypeople. Science Communication 36 (4): 479-501.
. Massarani L et al.(2017) Aproximaciones a la investigación en divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina a partir de sus artículos académicos. Red de Popularización de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en América Latina y el Caribe (RedPOP).Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mariana_Rocha4/publication/319165852 (accessed 25.3.2020).
. Massarani L (2015) Voices from other lands. Public Understanding of Science 24 (1): 2–5.
. Massarani L (2014) Science communication in Latin America: what is going on? Science Museum Group Journal 201 (2): 11-13.
. Molyneaux H and O'Donnell S (2008) Exploring the Gender Divide on YouTube: An Analysis of the Creation and Reception of Vlogs. American Communication Journal 10: 8–22.
. Morrison M (2012) Promissory futures and possible pasts: the dynamics of contemporary expectations in regenerative medicine. Biosocieties 7 (1): 3-22.
. Murcott THL and Williams A (2013) The challenges for science journalism in the UK. Progress in Physical Geography 37: 152–160.
. Mulkay M (1993) Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science 23 (4): 721-742.
. Nguyen A and Tram M (2019) Science journalism for development in the Global South: a systematic literature review of issues and challenges. Public Understanding of Science 28 (8): 973-990.
. Niewöhner J (2011) Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularization of biography and milieu. Biosocieties 6: 279–298.
. O Globo (2019) Alvo de políticos, "Jornal Nacional" ganha fôlego e público em 2019. Available at :https://tvefamosos.uol.com.br/noticias/ooops/2019/11/11/alvo-de-politicos-jornal-nacional-ganha-folego-e-publico-em-2019.htm (accessed 15.1. 2020).
. Orozco G (2014 a) Mexican research on TV: A tradition framed by a powerful quasi-monopolistic TV system. In: Alvarado M. Buonanno M and Miller T (eds.) The Sage handbook of television studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 105-114.
. Orozco G (2014 b) Televidencias: Comunicación, educación y ciudadanía. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.
. Patiño M et al. (2017) Diagnóstico de la divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina: Una mirada a la práctica en el campo. RedPOP e Fibonacci. León: México.
. Peters HP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of National Academy of Science 110:14102–14109.
. PNAD (2019) Pesquisa por Amostra de Domicilio- junho 2019. Brasília: IBGE.
Porto M (2007) TV news and political change in Brazil The impact of democratization on TV Globo’s journalism. Journalism 8(4): 363–384.
. Porto M (2012) Media power and democratization in Brazil: TV Globo and the dilemmas of political accountability. London and New York: Routledge.
. Possas C and Larouzé B (2014) Propriedade intelectual e políticas públicas para o acesso aos antirretrovirais nos Países do Sul. Rio de Janeiro: E-Papers.
. Raberharisoa V et al. (2014) From ‘politics of numbers’ to ‘politics of singularisation’: Patients’ activism and engagement in research on rare diseases in France and Portugal. Biosocieties 9 (2):194–217.
. Ramalho M et al. (2017) A cobertura de ciência em telejornais do Brasil e da Colômbia: um estudo comparativo das construções midiáticas Historia, Ciência e Saúde -Manguinhos 24 (1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702016005000019 (accessed 30.4. 2020).
. Ramalho M et al. (2012) Do laboratório para o horário nobre: a cobertura de ciência no principal telejornal brasileiro. Journal of Science Communication 11(2). Available at: https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/Jcom1102(2012)A02_po.pdf (accessed 15.8. 2020).
. Reznik G et al. (2014) Ciência na Televisão Pública: uma análise do telejornal Repórter Brasil. ALEXANDRIA: Revista de Educação em Ciência e Tecnologia 7 (1): 157-178.
. Rodriguez-Medina L et al. (2019). International Ties at Peripheral Sites: Co-producing Social Processes and Scientific Knowledge in Latin America. Science as Culture [online] June. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/39866447/International_Ties_at_Peripheral_Sites_Co-producing_Social_Processes_and_Scientific_Knowledge_in_Latin_America_View_supplementary_material (accessed 15.3.2020).
. Ruhrmann G et al. (2015) How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs? Public Understanding of Science 24(6): 681-696.
. Salter B et al. (2015) Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: consumer demand and stem cell science. Social Science & Medicine 131: 156–163.
. Schäfer MS (2012) Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science 21 (6): 650–663.
. Authors (2017) Plurality in understandings of innovation, sociotechnical progress and sustainable development: An analysis of OECD expert narratives. Public Understanding of Science 27 (5): 611-628.
. Sumner P et al. (2014) The association between exaggeration in health- related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. British Medical Journal 349: g7015.
. Tait Lima M et al. (2010) Popularização da ciência no Brasil: entrada na agenda pública, de que forma? In: Dagnino R and Brito Dias R (eds.) Estudos Sociais da Ciência e Tecnologia & Política de Ciência e Tecnologia: Alternativas Para Uma Nova América Latina. Gapi: Unicamp.
.Trouson A and McDonald C (2015) Stem Cell Therapies in Clinical Trials: Progress and Challenges. Cell Stem Cell 17 (1) :11-22.
.UNESCO (2018) UNESCO’S Internet Universality Indicators: A Framework for Assessing Internet Development. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/internetuniversality internetstudy@unesco.org (accessed 28.3. 2020).
. UNESCO (2020) Assessing Internet Development in Brazil using UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372330 ( accessed 10.5. 2020).
. Veneu F et al. (2008) Science journalism in Latin America: how the scientific information from a scientific source is accommodated when it is transformed into a journalistic story. Science Communication 7 (1): 1-9.
. Vicsek L (2011) Costs and Benefits of SCR and treatments: media presentation and audience understanding in Hungary. Science communication 33(3):309-340.
. Welbourne D and Grant W (2016) Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science 25 (6): 706-718.
. Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.
. You Tube (2019) You Tube Statistics 2020. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/about/press/ (accessed 15.5.2020)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 LILIANA ACERO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
