| Title |
In the Know and in the News: How Science and the Media Communicate About Stem Cells, Autism and Cerebral Palsy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-015-9627-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kimberly Sharpe, Nina Di Pietro, Judy Illes |
| Abstract |
Stem cell research has generated considerable attention for its potential to remediate many disorders of the central nervous system including neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and cerebral palsy (CP) that place a high burden on individual children, families and society. Here we characterized messaging about the use of stem cells for ASD and CP in news media articles and concurrent dissemination of discoveries through conventional science discourse. We searched LexisNexis and Canadian Newsstand for news articles from the US, UK, Canada and Australia in the period between 2000 and 2014, and PubMed for peer reviewed articles for the same 10 years. Using in-depth content analysis methods, we found less cautionary messaging about stem cells for ASD and CP in the resulting sample of 73 media articles than in the sample of 87 science papers, and a privileging of benefits over risk. News media also present stem cells as ready for clinical application to treat these neurodevelopmental disorders, even while the science literature calls for further research. Investigative news reports that explicitly quote researchers, however, provide the most accurate information to actual science news. The hope, hype, and promise of stem cell interventions for neurodevelopmental disorders, combined with the extreme vulnerability of these children and their families, creates a perfect storm in which journalists and stem cell scientists must commit to a continued, if not even more robust, partnership to promote balanced and accurate messaging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,007,774
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#73
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,730
of 290,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.