Skip to main content
Log in

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most studies of research integrity in the general media focus on the coverage of specific cases of misconduct. This paper tries to provide a more general, long-term perspective by analysing media discourse about research integrity and related themes in the Italian and United Kingdom daily press from 2000 to 2016. The results, based on a corpus of 853 articles, show that media coverage largely mirrors debates about integrity and misconduct. In fact, salient themes in the news include the importance to overcome the so-called “rotten apple” paradigm; the key role of public trust in science; and the need to address flaws in the peer-review system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Media discourse plays a relevant role in shaping perception and framing socially relevant themes issues. According to the classical “agenda setting” theory, the greater the emphasis and the amount of media coverage on an issue, the more the public will give salience and priority to it (McCombs and Shaw 1972).

  2. A partial exception is represented by a study of the Swedish media, by the organisation Vetenskap and Allmänhet, although limited to scientific misconduct: Misconduct and Confidence. A Media Analysis, 2014 (https://www.v-a.se/downloads/va-medieanalys-2014-english.pdf).

  3. A relevant example of how to conduct our qualitative media analysis was also that proposed by Anna Maria Jönsson (2011).

  4. For the list of fields, please see footnote 10.

  5. http://www.observa.it/science-in-the-media-monitor/?lang=en.

  6. The results collected through this keyword approach/process were mostly not pertinent to our research topic. Many of the articles, that therefore were left out, concerned ethical controversies, such as those related to cloning or, for Italy, to debates about stem cells.

  7. See also the PRINTEGER report by Horbach and Halffman (2016), Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: mapping contrasting discourses on 'scientific integrity'.

  8. Manipulation is frequently used to indicate image falsification.

  9. First, the word "cherry picking" was not used for the Italian newspaper research, due to the fact that there's no proper translation into Italian for this term. Secondly, the equivalent of the term "misconduct" is not a single word, but the expression "cattiva condotta"—which is not so frequent.

  10. The classification of research fields was based on UNESCO's most recent classification (www.uis.unesco.org): Natural Sciences (Mathematics, computer and information sciences, physical sciences, chemical sciences, earth and related environmental sciences, biological sciences, others); Engineering and Technology (Civil engineering, electrical, electronic, information engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, materials engineering, medical engineering, environmental engineering, environmental biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, nano-technology); Medical and Health Sciences (Basic medicine, clinical medicine, health sciences, health biotechnology, others); Agricultural Sciences (Agriculture, forestry and fishery, animal and dairy science, veterinary sciences, agricultural biotechnology); Social Sciences (Psychology, Economics and business, educational sciences, sociology, law, political science, social and economic geography, media and communications); Humanities (History and archaeology, languages and literature, philosophy, ethics and religion, art).

  11. For instance, the code family “causes” was composed of all the sub-codes indicating various types of cause, identified within the articles.

  12. The expression "actual responses" refers to the responses put into place by research institutions -or in some cases by the law.

  13. As mentioned, data for 2016 only covers January–March 2016. The increase in attention to cases of misconduct does not seem attributable to a general increase in the salience of news related to science and technology. According to the Science Media Monitor data, the salience index of ST news on the total of news in the four Italian newspapers considered remained substantially stable between 2008 (11.1%) and 2015 (9.2%). See Di Buccio et al. (2014) and Observa Science in the Media Monitor, http://www.observa.it/science-in-the-media-monitor/?lang=en.

  14. This is also consistent with the Swedish study conducted in 2014 by the Vetenskap and Allmänhet organization.

  15. Printeger.eu.

  16. Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science. The Guardian, 2 November 2012.

  17. When plagiarism is academic. The Guardian, 30 October 2007.

  18. Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science. The Guardian, 2 November 2012 (see also Fanelli 2012, 2013).

  19. False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. The Guardian, 13 September 2012.

  20. For instance in Climate scientists must be absolutely honest about data. The Guardian, 4 March 2010.

  21. See for instance Is the spirit of Piltdown man alive and well?. The Daily Telegraph, 7 September 2005.

  22. Giovanni Boniolo: "Too much pressure to publish paves way to frauds". La Repubblica, 30 March 2015. Translated from Italian: ‘Ma oggi c'è un'enorme pressione a pubblicare, e a farlo in fretta, perché è da quello che dipende la carriera di uno scienziato. Così molte volte nessuno replica l'esperimento. E scappano frodi, ed errori in buona fede"‘, Giovanni Boniolo, Troppa pressione a pubblicare: le frodi sfuggono.

  23. Academics Anonymous: scientific publishing is a license to print money, not the truth. The Guardian, 4 July 2014.

  24. Ducks are nature's Tories, and other fun with cherry-picking. The Guardian, 29 April 2013.

  25. Scientist jailed for faking medicine test results. The Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2013.

  26. Replication is the only solution to scientific fraud. The Guardian, 14 September 2012.

  27. A question of trust: fixing the replication crisis. The Guardian, 28 May 2014.

  28. 177 occurrences in the UK articles and 34 in Italian ones.

  29. 138 occurrences for UK, 37 for Italy.

  30. 165 occurrences versus 33 occurrences.

  31. 86 occurrences versus 20 occurrences.

  32. 1 in 4 papers on cancer research is misleading. The Times, 20 June 2015.

  33. The good-example against fraud. Il Sole 24 Ore, 5 April 2015. Translated from Italian: ‘Le conseguenze della cattiva condotta sono lo sperpero di soldi pubblici e un clima di sfiducia sospetto nei riguardi della scienza e di chi la pratica’, Il buon esempio anti-frode.

  34. False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. The Guardian, 13 September 2012. See also, for instance Publish all clinical trial data, MPs argue, The Daily Telegraph, 17 September 2013, where Andrew Miller, chair of the Commons science and technology committee, is quoted.

  35. The epidemic of ‘fixed’ researches. Corriere della Sera, 28 May 2006. Translated from Italian: ‘La preoccupazione del dottor Remuzzi, a questo punto, è nostra: ‘C'è il concreto rischio che questi piccoli e grossi imbrogli allontanino irrimediabilmente dalla scienza il grande pubblico’, L’epidemia delle ricerche ‘taroccate’.

  36. Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review. The Guardian, 1 March 2010.

  37. Meteorology needs bold leadership to build public trust in climate research. The Guardian, 8 January 2013.

  38. Open access will be crucial to maintain public confidence in science. The Guardian, 20 April 2012.

  39. Publications based on false data. The proposal of criminal sanctions. Corriere della Sera, 19 July 2014. Translated from Italian: ‘Ecco perché, secondo Buttha, chi si rende responsabile di una frode scientifica, andrebbe perseguito penalmente. Non tutti, però, sono d’accordo e auspicano un atteggiamento più preventivo che punitivo, ritenendo che la criminalizzazione possa minare la fiducia nella ricerca scientifica’, Pubblicazioni basate su dati falsi. La proposta di una sanzione penale.

  40. US scientists admit the truth—new discovery was an elementary fabrication. The Guardian, 15 July 2002.

  41. Rules and limits can only be defined by advancing in knowledge. La Repubblica, 20 April 2015. Translated from Italian: ‘E credo che questi dilemmi siano da prendere seriamente (quando giustificati) perché indispensabili per costruire un rapporto tra scienza e società basandolo sulla trasparenza, sull'integrità, sulla coerenza dei pensieri e dei comportamenti di chi fa scienza, di chi la studia o la amministra, di chi crede e spera in essa. Senza però mai disconoscere la conoscenza’, Solo avanzando nella conoscenza potremo stabilire regole e limiti.

  42. False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. The Guardian, 13 September 2012.

  43. Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review. The Guardian, 2 February 2010.

  44. Moment of truth for GM crops. The Guardian, 10 April 2003.

  45. When researchers go wrong: stories of incorrect science. La Repubblica, 24 February 2012. Translated from Italian: ‘Il vaccino che la scienza usa per difendere sé stessa da frodi e sbagli si chiama "peer review", ed è un filtro usato dalle riviste per pubblicare solo studi a prova di errore’, Quando sbagliano i ricercatori le storie della scienza inesatta. One should note that this article fails in distinguishing between mistakes or errors and episodes of misconduct.

  46. Subterfuge that brought success. Times, 22 December 2010.

  47. Do not empty the ‘peer review’. Il Sole 24 Ore, 14 June 2009. Translated from Italian: ‘Un profondo conoscitore italiano del sistema di peer review, l’anatomopatologo Paolo Bianco, che ha lavorato a lungo ai National Institues of Health (Nih) e fa parte del registro Nih dei valutatori, è solito dire di questa procedura quello che Churchill diceva della democrazia: è il peggior sistema, a parte tutti gli altri’, Non svuotate la ‘peer review’.

  48. Scientific research. The scam of fake data and the performance anxiety. La Repubblica, 13 March 2016. Translated from Italian: ‘Il problema è che non ne abbiano uno migliore’, Ricerca scientifica. La truffa dei dati ritoccati e l'ansia da prestazione.

  49. Bad Science: Peer review is flawed but the best we've got. The Guardian, 12 September 2009.

  50. Big trouble in the world of 'Big Physics'. The Guardian, 18 September 2002.

  51. How to write a false paper, La Stampa, 27 February 2014. Translated from Italian: Come costruire un falso articolo scientifico.

  52. Climate science's Chinese whispers. The books that separate global warming fact from fiction. Independent”, 23 April 2010.

  53. Who governs science?. The Guardian, 15 August 2014.

  54. Giovanni Boniolo: "Too much pressure to publish paves way to frauds". La Repubblica, 30 March 2015. Translated from Italian: ‘Poi in settori molto specifici gli esperti sono pochi, anche quattro o cinque. Per cui, per quanto coperti dall'anonimato, si può capire chi siano mentre loro possono capire a chi appartenga la ricerca che stanno valutando. Questo può aprire a meccanismi problematici come il ritardo della pubblicazione di un rivale"‘, Giovanni Boniolo: "Troppa pressione a pubblicare: le frodi sfuggono".

  55. The Guardian view on the end of the peer review. The Guardian, 6 July 2014.

  56. Draft guidelines on Good Practice in Biomedical Research. The Guardian, 24 August 2001.

  57. Ethics code seeks to regulate science. The Guardian, 5 January 2006.

  58. See also ‘When in 2013 "Nature" reported another episode of misconduct (the case of the oncologist Alfredo Fusco), the serious delay of Italy in the field of the codes for research integrity emerged’ (Scientific fraud is not punished. Corriere della Sera, 14 February 2016). Translated from Italian: ‘Quando nel 2013 "Nature" aveva riferito di un altro episodio di cattiva condotta (il caso dell’oncologo Alfredo Fusco) era emerso un grave ritardo dell’Italia nel campo delle norme sull’integrità della ricerca scientifica’, La frode scientifica resta impunita.

  59. The 5 qualities of integrity against fraud. Il Sole 24 Ore, 14 February 2016. Translated from Italian: ‘I principali principi adottati sono: dignità, responsabilità, equità, correttezza e diligenza. Ad essi fa seguito una ricca articolazione di condotte che promuovono l’integrità nella ricerca e quindi i comportamenti da evitare in quanto illeciti, discutibili o irresponsabili’, I 5 valori dell’integrità antifrode.

  60. US scientists admit the truth—new discovery was an elementary fabrication. The Guardian, 15 July 2002.

  61. Today, only knowledge can make us richer. Il Sole 24 Ore, 13 March 2011. Translated from Italian: ‘Bioetica e integrità della ricerca non sono solo aree di riflessione, ma parte degli attrezzi che usa quotidianamente un buon ricercatore’, Oggi solo il sapere può farci più ricchi.

  62. We need clinical trials but we must remain vigilant. The Guardian, 5 January 2016.

  63. Fooling ourselves with science: hoaxes, retractions and the public. The Guardian, 2 June 2015.

  64. The games we play: A troubling dark side in academic publishing. The Guardian, 12 March 2015.

  65. The cited Swedish study (Vetenskap and Almanhet 2014), however, does not find a correlation between coverage of scientific misconduct and loss of confidence in science in public opinion.

  66. For a detailed historical and sociological analysis of such forms of ‘deviations’—which have historically involved also well recognized scientists—see Bucchi (1998).

  67. Even if there's no literature regarding this hypothetical theoretical framework, the persuasive interpretation suggested by Cinzia Caporale still deserves to be proposed. Caporale, head of the research integrity committee at CNR (Italian National Research Council), was interviewed by Ilaria Ampollini on Tuesday 15th November 2016.

  68. A similar position was recently expressed by sociologist and philosopher Bruno Latour in an interview with Science magazine (de Vrieze 2017), https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/bruno-latour-veteran-science-wars-has-new-mission.

References

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics,87(3), 499–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arimoto, T., & Sato, Y. (2012). Rebuilding public trust in science for policy-making. Science,337, 1176–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., & Bucchi, M. (Eds.). (2007). Journalism, science and society. Science communication between news and public relations. London–New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., Boyadjieva, P., & Gornev, G. (2006). Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the ‘iron curtain’: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science,36(1), 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowe, B. J., Oshita, T., Terracina-Hartman, C., & Chao, W. C. (2014). Framing of climate change in newspaper coverage of the East Anglia e-mail scandal. Public Understanding of Science,23(2), 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: Alternative routes in science communication. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2010). Scienza e Società. Introduzione alla sociologia della scienza. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, G. R. (2003). Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding Science,12, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M., & Saracino, B. (Eds.). (2014). Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2014, Edizione speciale. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consoli, L. (2006). Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics,12(3), 533–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science,17(3), 309–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vrieze, J. (2017). Bruno Latour, a veteran of the ‘science wars,’ has a new mission. ScienceMag, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/bruno-latour-veteran-science-wars-has-new-mission. Accessed February 27, 2017.

  • Di Buccio, E., Lorenzet, A., & Neresini, F. (2014). Scienza e tecnologia nei media italiani: tendenze generali e dieci temi ricorrenti. In M. Bucchi & B. Saracino (Eds.), Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2014. Edizione speciale (pp. 51–84). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics,90, 891–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2013). Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines. Scientometrics,92(2), 701–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, P. J. (2002). The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics,8(3), 413–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology,95(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauchata, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere. A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review,77(2), 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haerlin, B., & Parr, D. (1999). How to restore public trust in science. Nature,400, 499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Modelli di giornalismo: Mass media e politica nelle democrazie occidentali. Bari: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haran, J., & Kitzinger, J. (2009). Modest witnessing and managing the boundaries between science and the media: A case study of breakthrough and scandal. Public Understanding of Science,18, 634–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, A. (2012). The blame frame: Media attribution of culpability about the MMR-autism vaccination scare. Health Communication,27(7), 690–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2016). Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: Mapping contrasts in the language of ‘scientific integrity’. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, T. (2000). Real or perceived adverse effects of vaccines and the media—A tale of our times. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,54, 402–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, A. M. (2011). Framing environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: A news media analysis. Ambio,40(2), 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Južnič, P., Pečlin, S., Žaucer, M., Mandeli, T., Pušnik, M., & Demšar, F. (2010). Scientometric indicators: Peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests. Scientometrics,85(2), 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science,18, 559–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2012). Bias in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,64(1), 2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh Star, S., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,’translations’ and boundary objects, amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science,19(3), 387–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Speers, T. (2003). Misleading media reporting? The MMR story. Nature Reviews Immunology,3, 913–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog, R. (1996). In science we trust? On the relation between scientific knowledge, risk consciousness and public trust. Acta Sociologica,39(1), 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzet, A. (2006). Razionalità e retorica: il dibattito sugli OGM nei quotidiani italiani. In M. Bucchi & F. Neresini (Eds.), Cellule e cittadini: biotecnologie nello spazio pubblico (pp. 103–122). Milano: Sironi editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzet, A. (2012). Il dibattito sull’energia nei media italiani. In F. Neresini & G. Pellegrini (Eds.), Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2012 (pp. 43–61). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzet, A. (2013). Il lato controverso della tecnoscienza. Nanotecnologie, biotecnologie e grandi opere nella sfera pubblica. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzet, A., & Giardullo, P. (2013). La ricerca emergente nei media: nanotecnologie, neuroscienze, biologia sintetica e proteomica. In A. Lorenzet & F. Neresini (Eds.), Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2013 (pp. 39–54). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function in mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly,36(2), 176–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic—Survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science,16(4), 421–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2002). Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of dolly. Body and Society,8(4), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3), 305–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M. (2010). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science,21, 650–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicin,99(4), 178–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speers, T., & Lewis, J. (2004). Journalists and jabs: Media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Communication & Medicine,1, 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetenskap & Almanhet Organisation. (2014). Misconduct and confidence. A media analysis. https://www.v-a.se/downloads/va-medieanalys-2014-english.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under Grant Agreement No. 665926 (PRINTEGER).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilaria Ampollini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ampollini, I., Bucchi, M. When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 451–474 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00103-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00103-5

Keywords

Navigation