Dumbing It Down | Illumination

Cameron and Geana presented their findings at the International Communication Association meeting last June in Dresden, Germany. Their work got a prickly reception, thanks chiefly to statements like this one: "[the study] suggests that while these journalists have a high understanding of science and technology and a high regard for the quality of their scientific sources, they do not have a highly positive perception of the general public regarding its potential to understand scientific issues and are fervent supporters of digesting publicized scientific news." In other words, reporters feel the public can handle only short, simple science stories.

More specifically, Cameron and Geana found that about 90 percent of the science journalists surveyed believe biotechnology is beneficial. But almost all thought their own favorable perspective was out of touch with the attitudes of their readers. Journalists believed only about half of U.S. citizens favor biotechnology use, and the reporters tended to embrace the point of view that most Americans are nervous about biotechnology issues because the science is too difficult to understand.

This perception of public ignorance has left science journalists feeling uncertain about how exactly they should write about biotechnology. But they were sure about one thing: close to 75 percent told Cameron and Geana they felt the need to simplify their stories.

What might this mean to a public research university such as MU? The implications are far-reaching, penetrating to the heart of the University's role in building a technologically advanced society. Without the support of a well-informed public, no research-intensive institution can expect to prosper. For better or worse, the vast majority of the public learns about scientific advances, as Cameron's own experience shows, via the mass media.

So why are journalists so pessimistic about the public's ability to understand and appreciate biotechnology, especially applications such as genetically modifying plants to boost yields and prevent diseases? And if the public is indeed incapable of grasping the meaning of biotechnology and other science stories, who is to blame for this failure?

Cameron and Geana began their search for answers by documenting the quantity of science coverage. They accomplished this by using the news-content database maintained by LexisNexis Academic to tally headlines that included the terms "genetics," "genetically modified foods" and "biotechnology." Their count showed that, over the past five years, science news stories on these topics in major American newspapers showed a marked decline.

Published by the Office of Research.