Qualidade das notícias em ciência e medicina: a imprensa na medicina regenerativa no Brasil
Mots-clés :
Medicina regenerativa, meios de comunicação de massa, saúde coletiva, terapia celular, imprensa.Résumé
Os meios de comunicação de massa funcionam como uma ponte entre a ciência, a medicina e o público. Discute-se a qualidade dos relatos recentes da imprensana medicina regenerativa em dois jornais nacionais, a Folha de São Paulo e O Globo, e no contexto do jornalismo internacional. Aplicam-se a aproximação teórica da Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade e o estudo sociológico qualitativo dos enquadramentos, para compreender o impacto da imprensa na saúde coletiva. Estudam-se os dispositivos textuais nos relatos – metáforas, exemplos, frases de efeito e representações - e os elementos de raciocínio – origens, causas/efeitos e apelo a princípios. Dentro de uma escassez geral de matérias, salientam-se dois enquadramentos principais: o científico e o social, que refletem deficiências nas histórias, um otimismo exagerado no progresso nacional e sua legitimação em fontes internacionais. Essa situação contribui a induzir vieses no entendimento público e o desenvolvimento de falsas expectativas sobre as terapias celulares.
Téléchargements
Références
ACERO, L. Science, public policy and engagement: Debates on stem cell research in Brazil. Life Sciencesand Social Policy, v.6, n. 3, p.1–17, 2010.
ACERO, L. Pesquisas e Terapias com Células-Tronco: Visões Sociais e o Debate no Brasil 2011. Rio de Janeiro: E-Papers.
ACERO, L. Regulação internacional e governança na medicina regenerativa: trajetórias do Reino Unido e a União Europeia e repercussões para a saúde coletiva global. OIKOS,v. 18, n. 2, p. 82-95, 2019.
ASWELL, DJ. The challengesofsciencejournalism: The perspectives ofscientists, science communication advisorsandjournalistsfrom New Zealand. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 25, n. 1, p. 379–393, 2016.
BARBOSA , A. ; MALIK,A. Desafios na organização de parcerias público-privadas em saúde no Brasil. Análise de projetos estruturados entre janeiro de 2010 e março de 2014. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 49 n.5 Rio de Janeiro, 2015.
BAUER, M. W.; HOWARD S.; YULVE, J.; RAMOS R., MASSARANI L. , AMORIN L. Global sciencejournalismreport: workingconditions&practices, professional ethosand future expectations. Ourlearning series. London: Science andDevelopment Network, London SchoolofEconomicsandPolitical Science, 2013.
BESLEY, JC.; TANNER, AH. Whatscience communication scholars thinkabout training scientiststocommunicate.Science Communication,v. 33, n. 1, p. 239–263, 2011.
BROWN, N. Hope against hype – Accountability in biopasts. Presentsand Futures, ScienceStudies, v. 16, n. 2, p. 3–21, 2003.
BRUMFIELD, G. Science journalism: Supplantingtheold media? Nature,v.458, p. 274–277, 2009.
BULLOCK, O., AMILL, D., SHULLMAN, H., DIXON, G. Jargon as a barriertoeffectivescience communication: Evidencefrommetacognition. PublicUndersandingof Science,v. 28, n.7, p. 845-853, 2019.
CASTELL, S.; CHARLTON, A, Clemence, M, Pettigrew, N, Pope, S, Quigley, A. PublicAttitudestoScience . London: Department for Business, Innovationand Skills, 2014.
CHYI, HI.; LEWIS, SC; ZHENG, N. A matteroflifeand death? Examiningthequalityofnewspapercoverageonthenewspapercrisis. JournalismStudies, v. 13, p. 305–324, 2012.
CAULFIELD, T.; FAHY, D. Science, celebritiesandpublicengagement. Issues in Science & Technology, v.32 , n. 4, p. 24–26., 2016.
CENTRO DE GESTÃO E ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS -CGEE, Percepção pública da Ciência e a Tecnologia no Brasil 2019: Resumo Executivo. Brasília: CGEE, 2019.
COLLINS,H.M; EVANS,R. The thirdwaveof Science studies: sstudiesof expertise andexperience. Social Studies of Science, v.32,n.2, p.25-96, 2002.
DAWSON, E. Reimaginingpublicsand (non) participation: Exploringexclusionfromscience communication throughtheexperiencesoflow-income, minorityethnicgroups. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 27, n. 7, p. 772–786, 2018.
DAVIES, S.; HALPERN, M. ;HORST, M.; KIRBY, D.; LEWENSTEIN, B. Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrativeandemotion in public communication ofscience.Journalof Science Communication,v. 18, n. 5, p.A01-17, 2019.
ENTMANN, RM. Framing: Towardclarificationof a fracturedparadigm. JournalofCommunication, v.43, p. 51–58, 1993.
ELLIOT, R. The MedializationofRegenerative Medicine: Frames andMetaphors in UK News Stories. In: RÖDDER S.; FRANZEN, M., WEINGART, P. (Org.).The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. SociologyoftheSciencesYearbook. Dordrecht :Springer, 2012, p.87-105.
ELMER, C.;BANDENSCHIER, F.;WORMET, H.Science for everybody? Howthecoverageofresearchissues in Germannewspapershasincreaseddramatically. Journalism& Mass Communication Quarterly, v.85, n.4, p. 878–893, 2008.
GAMSON, W.; MODIGLIANI, A. Media discourseandPublicopinionon Nuclearpower: A constructionist approach. AmericanJournalofSociology, v. 95, n.1, p. 1-37, 1989.
HALPERN, M. Acrossthegreat divide: boundariesandboundaryobjects in artandscience. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 21, n. 8, p. 922–937, 2012.
HARAN, J.; KITZINGER, J. Modestwitnessingandmanagingtheboundariesbetweenscienceandthe media: A case study of breakthrough andscandal. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 18, n. 6, p. 634-652, 2009.
IRWIN, A. The politicsoftalk:comingtotermswiththe “new” scientificgovernance. Social Studies of Science, v.36,n.2, p.299-320, 2006.
IRWIN, A.; MICHAEL, M. Science, Social TheoryandPublicKnowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003.
IRWIN, A.; ELGAARD, T.; JONES, K. The good, thebadandtheperfect: Criticizingengagementpractice. Social Studies of Science, v. 43, n. 1, p.118–135, 2012.
JASANOFF, S. Designs onNature: Science andDemocracy in Europeandthe United States.Princenton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
JASANOFF, S. ; KIM, SH. DreamscapesofModernity: SociotechnicalImaginariesandtheFabricationof Power. Chicago, U.S.A.: The Universityof Chicago Press, 2015.
JURBERG, C.; VERCOVSKY, M.; MACHADO, G., MittidieriO.Embryonicstemcell: A climax in thereignoftheBrazilian media. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 18, n.6, p. 719–729, 2009.
KAMENOVA, K.; CAULFIELD, T. Stemcell hype: Media portrayaloftherapytranslation. ScienceTransational Medicine, v.7, n. 278, p. 278-282, 2015.
KAMENOVA, K. Media portrayalofstemcellresearch: towards a normativemodel for science communication AsianBioethics Review, v.9, n.3, p. 199–209, 2017.
LYNCH, J.; BENNETT, D.; LUNTZ, A; TOY,C. VANBENSCHOTEN,E. ;Bridging Science andJournalism: Identifyingthe Role ofPublicRelations in theConstructionandCirculationofStemCellResearchAmongLaypeople. Science Communication, v. 36, n.4, p.479-501, 2014.
LEDFORD, H. CRISPR, thedisruptor. Nature News, v. 522, p. 20-24, 2015.
MASSARANI, L. Developing world andscience communication research. Science Communication, v. 12, n.1, p. 45-68, 2013.
MCKINNON, M.; HOWE, J.; LEACH, A.; PROKOP, N. Perilsand positives ofsciencejournalism in Australia. PublicUndersandingof Science, v. 27, n. 5, p. 562-577, 2018.
MURCOTT, THL; Williams, A. The challenges for sciencejournalism in the UK. Progressin PhyicalGeography, v. 37, n. 2, p. 152–160, 2013.
NISBET, M. BROSSARD, D.; KROEPSCH, A.Framingscience: The stemcellcontroversy in an age ofpress/politics. InternationalJournalof Press Politics,v.8, p. 36–70, 2003.
PETERS, HP. Gap betweenscienceand media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. ProceedingsofNationalAcademyof Science, v. 110, p.14102–14109, 2013.
RAMALHO M.; MASSARANI, L.; POLINO, C.Fromthelaboratoryto prime time: sciencecoverage in themainBrazilian TV newscast. Science Communication, v.11,n. 2, p.15-24, 2012
REIS, R. HowBrazilianand North American Newspapers Frame theStemCellResearchDebate, Science Communication, v. 29, n.3, p. 316-334, 2008.
RUHRMANN, G.; GUENTHER, L.; KESSLER, SH.; MILDE, J. Howjournalistsrepresentthe (un) certaintyof molecular medicine in sciencetelevisionprograms? PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 24, n. 6, p. 681-696, 2015.
SCHÄFER, MS. Taking stock: A meta-analysisofstudiesonthemedia’scoverageofscience. PublicUnderstandingof Science, v. 21, n. 6, p. 650–663, 2012.
YOON, Y. Examiningjournalists' perceptionsandnewscoverageofstemcellandcloningorganizations. Journalof Mass CommunicationQuarterly,v. 82, n.2, p. 281-300, 2005.
