Read how scientists and journalists both portrayed this new genetic discovery in their respective articles.
This web page was produced as an assignment for an undergraduate course at Davidson College.
| Some Fact Concerning Alzheimer's | What the Scientists Discovered | How the Popular Press Conveyed It |
|---|
The day the article was published online at nature genetics, BBC came out with a review about this scientific article without the science. BBC's article appealed and still appeals to the coward who is looking for hope in the discovery of new genes. The readers only get a vague idea of the extensive work carried out by the researchers with methods almost completely left out of the entire article.
The scientists' thoroughness is recognized by stating the fact that “16,000 DNA samples” were used, however the popular press article has no further development of how the samples were used.
The article tells the readers that the genes are potentially involved in inflammation and cholesterol breakdown, both processes well understood by the average individual. The online article also presents a two-minute sound byte that tells patients that this finding is "important because it teaches more about how the disease is caused." The genes’ roles in biological process are again revealed.
"It is hoped the Nature Genetics study will open the way for new treatments." The article strongly focuses the reader's attention on how the study will impact the future of Alzheimer's disease, both the study and the cure. The future is constantly discussed, with answers to questions of how long will it take to understand Alzheimer's and what more needs to be done with this new discovery that will lead to the treatment of Alzheimer's from the sound byte. The article ties into fears of the audience after making the statement that “There are 700,000 people living with dementia in the UK, a number predicted to reach 1.7 million by 2050.” Every other line addresses how this new research will lead to further improvements of the understanding of Alzheimer’s disease, which will further lead to a cure. The importance of the researched is confirmed by multiple sources: Dr. Suzanne Sorensen from the Alzheimer’s Society, Professor Julie Williams and CEO Rebecca Wood from Alzheimer’s Research Trust.
The popular press is trying to instill hope in the public based off this research.
Critique:
The lead starts off well by simply stating the news: researchers have found two genes. The words "potentially" and "uncovered" show that this writer is not misinformed about the uncertainties in science and replacing uncovered for discovered gives off the feeling that the gene was there along and that it was not hiding.
Of course the audience is going to be different, therefore the information will be presented differently. But the information here was not presented in the scientific article. The BBC article states that the genes are "known to be implicated in inflammation and cholesterol breakdown." This information is not sourced and is incorrect. It is involved, possibly, in the clearance of ABeta but nothing is said of cholesterol not inflammation. The role is made clearer through the sound byte, but what if the sound byte wasn't clicked, and then the significance of Lambert et al would be diminished.
The focus of the scientific paper is to firmly state the association they found between APOE to CLU and CR1. While both papers discuss future research projects, the popular press article focuses almost every other line on how this revealing will lead to way to future treatment, research, insight to the disease's processes, more about what may happen with this information. There is now emphasis on the research that it took to get here. Only the fact that it took 16 years is marked upon. The advancement of genotyping techniques are not highlighted at al. PILCAM, while it is definitely important in their findings, is barely emphasized in the scientific publication, while it is named as the second gene. CR1, the second gene in the publication, is demonstrated as the third gene discussed while its standing in the article is much more profound.
The difference between the two articles is so vast that it feels as though some literature is missing from the articles. The reporter's roles according to Kua et al are to be the intermediary, the watchdog and the tool-giver. The unnamed reporter is only one of these three key aspects: the watchdog. This article was immediately written post online publication of the scientific article and only discusses the public interests about he future implications of this finding. The transition between scientific article and popular press article is not smooth and comprehensible. There is no translation of the publication in the popular press article; it acts more like an idealized epilogue. While it may act as a tool-giver since it raises questions about the "long-term significance," the path it leads the reader on is more so one of hoping and waiting instead of encouraging one to further investigate. The author did not excel in any one of these roles and therefore this is a terrible popular press article.
Click at this link to see the article: BBC Article: "Alzheimer's genes link uncovered"
References
Lambert, J. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and CR1 associated with Alzheimer's disease [Internet]. Nature Genetics. Published online: 6 Sept 2009 [cited: 14 Sept 2009] Available from: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ng.439.html
Kua E, Reder M, Grossel MJ. Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Sciene. 2004; 13: 309-322.
Alzheimer's genes link uncovered. BBC News [Internet]. 2009 Sept 6 [cited 2009 Sept 17]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8237686.stm
Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Association Nation Site [Internet]. Chicago (IL): Alzheimer’s Association; c2009 . Alzheimer’s Facts and Figures; 7 Jul 2009 [cited 2009 Sept 14]; [about 1 screens]. Available from: http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_facts_figures.asp