Professional Biologist
Journalism and Social Media as
Means of Observing the Contexts
of Science
Joachim Allgaier, Sharon Dunwoody, Dominique Brossard, Yin-Yueh Lo, and Hans Peter Peters
The transformation of today’s mass media system leads to uncertainty about communication behaviors concerning scientific issues. So far, few
researchers have investigated this issue among scientists. We conducted a survey of neuroscientists in Germany and the United States in which we
asked them about their own information-seeking behaviors and their assessment of the influence of various types of “old” and “new” media on
public opinion and political decisionmaking. Our findings suggest that neuroscientists continue to use traditional journalistic media more often
than blogs and social networks for information seeking but perceive all of these channels to have a strong influence on public opinion and political
decisionmaking processes.
Keywords: neuroscience, journalism, social media, blogs, social networks
P
ublic narratives about neuroscience have become c­ ommon, both in traditional media channels, such
as television and magazines, and in newer social channels
and blogs. These narratives probably influence how society
perceives neuroscientific research and its potential benefits,
and scientists face increasing pressure to communicate their
results and the implications of those findings to the public
and to policymakers (Abi-Rached 2008, Illes et al. 2010).
The growth of new media channels has led many to question
whether social online media might be supplanting conventional journalistic channels, such as newspapers and tele­
vision, for information related to scientific issues (Brumfiel
2009)—a trend that would present both a challenge and an
opportunity for those seeking to foster public engagement
with neuroscience.
In recent years and in various studies, the types of neuro­
scientific research that get press attention have been explored
(e.g., Racine et al. 2010, O’Connell et al. 2011, O’Connor
et al. 2012), as have the challenges of reporting neuro­
scientific findings to general audiences (Gonon et al. 2011)
and the social implications of popular neuroscience accounts
(Heinemann and Heinemann 2010). Although studies have
indicated that scientists—like other citizens—typically use
the mass media to monitor events in their communities
and nation (Price 1992, Kiernan 2003), survey data are just
beginning to illuminate how the public uses various types
of “new” and “old” media to follow general developments
in science or specific scientific fields and issues (see, e.g.,
National Science Board 2012). Evidence is also beginning to
characterize the ways in which different facets of the public
use social media to try to influence research priorities (Chafe
et al. 2011), but scientists’ use of these new media channels
is far less clear.
Previous studies have also had little to say about scientists’ beliefs about the possible impacts of media messages
on public opinion and political decisionmaking. Price
(1992) argued that policymakers attend closely to media
messages as surrogates for the opinions of others, but it is
unclear whether scientists make similar inferences. Tapping
into scientists’ perceptions of what influences public beliefs
about science, as well as researchers’ perceptions of how
news about neuroscience may influence political decisionmaking, is the focus of this brief essay. We examine these
questions within the large and varied landscape of neuroscience, in part because the discipline has become increasingly popular as a place where science news can be “found”
and in part because this analysis was designed to be the first
part of a larger study of the ways in which neuroscientists
in the United States and Germany interact with issues of
public visibility.
We conducted an online survey to answer the questions
posed above. In November 2010, an invitation to participate
in the survey was sent to 1248 neuroscientists in the United
States and in Germany. They were randomly selected from
BioScience 63: 284–287. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2013 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
­permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8
284 BioScience • April 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 4
www.biosciencemag.org
Professional Biologist
a list of authors or coauthors of at least eight publications
in neuroscientific journals (based on the Thomson-Reuters
Web of Science classification scheme for neuroscientific
journals) in the 2-year period preceding the survey. The
invitation e-mail included a unique link to the survey
Web site that was invalidated after the completion of one
questionnaire. After several waves of solicitation, the final
response rates were 21.3% in the United States (n = 126)
and 32.6% in Germany (n = 131). The research protocol
was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the
University of Wisconsin–Madison.
The scientists responded to questions about three dimensions of public media channels, both traditional and online:
(1) their personal use of these channels to “follow news and
information about scientific issues”; (2) their assessment of
the impact of scientific information in these channels on
public opinion about science; and (3) their assessment of
the impact of such information on “science-related decisions made by policymakers.” The respondents answered the
­questions with respect to a comprehensive list of traditional
print or broadcast media, online analogs of those media
channels, blogs, and content in social networks. To focus
on meaningful patterns, we aggregated the detailed answers
into the four broader categories shown in figure 1; the
detailed data, as well as information about the aggregation
process, are presented as supplemental material, available
online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8.
Media, for the purposes of this study, is a term that
captures a large set of information conveyers. Media are
not sources of information but, rather, channels through
which information is gathered from sources—usually
by ­journalists—and then fashioned into narratives for
a
b
distribution to the general public. Among those channels are
newspapers, magazines, radio, and television as well as, in
this new century, digital analogs of each of those. Therefore,
someone who attends to media coverage of science news
may gather that information by, say, watching CNN on
television or visiting the network’s online equivalent, CNN.
com. In contrast, social channels—blogs and sites such as
Facebook and Twitter—may also contain news but are created and disseminated by individuals. The sources of the
information employed in these channels can be uncertain,
because these sites often aggregate information from a variety of other channels, including traditional media. In addition, a user of social channels expects to find distinct points
of view in the narratives there. In the survey, a compromise
had to be made between presenting an exhaustive and differentiated list of “channels” to the respondents and the time
required to complete the questionnaire.
The results of our survey indicate that the respondents in
both countries remained heavily reliant on journalistic narratives, in both traditional and online forms, for information
about scientific issues. Only a modest number of the surveyed neuroscientists reported that they use blogs or social
networks to monitor such issues (figure 1a, supplemental
table S1a). We found few significant differences between the
two countries regarding the use of media and social channels at this aggregate level, although the use of individual
channels within the broader categories varied. For example,
although national newspapers, news magazines, and tele­
vision were more important in Germany, the US scientists
were more likely to access the content of newspapers online.
All told, though, the overall picture was similar in the two
countries.
c
Figure 1. Media use and presumed media influence (in percentages) on public opinion and political decisionmaking of
neuroscientists in the United States and Germany. For the exact wording of the questions, detailed data, and significance
information, consult supplemental table S1, available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8.
www.biosciencemag.org April 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 4 • BioScience 285
Professional Biologist
Although one might expect to find younger scientists relying more on online information than older scientists do, the
data only partly support this difference. For the purposes of
our analysis, age was coded as a dichotomous variable: 21%
of the respondents were younger than 40 years of age; 79%
were 40 years of age or older. A few differences surfaced:
The older researchers were more reliant on newspapers for
science information than were their younger counterparts,
whereas the younger researchers valued online articles more
than did their more senior colleagues. Furthermore, signi­
ficantly more young researchers followed popular science
postings in social networks than did the researchers older
than 40, but the use of blogs and social networks to follow
information about scientific issues was low for both the
younger and the older neuroscientists compared with their
use of journalistic channels.
Although 22% of the respondents were female, gender
differences in the use of media channels were not apparent. Among the few differences were that women scientists
reported less reliance on newspapers and printed popular
science magazines for science issue information than did the
male neuroscientists.
Concerning the impact on public opinion, most of the
respondents agreed that traditional journalistic content (print
media, radio, television) and these organizations’ online stories could “strongly influence” how members of the public
think about scientific issues. Fewer (but still a majority) of the
American neuroscientists believed that blogs and social networks could strongly influence public opinion about science.
In contrast, only around 45% of the German neuroscientists
held that belief (figure 1b, supplemental table S1b).
Virtually the same pattern was found for the question
about the impact of various media sources on political
­decisionmaking (figure 1c, supplemental table S1c). Here,
again, most of the respondents agreed that traditional journalistic content in print media, radio, or television and journalistic online content (e.g., online versions of newspaper
stories) could have “a strong influence on political decisionmaking.” A majority of the American scientists (61%) attributed that same power to blogs, but fewer (41%) thought that
content in social networks could influence policymaking.
The German neuroscientists saw much less power in these
alternative channels.
These responses yielded an interesting pattern: The number of neuroscientists who believed that online channels
such as blogs and social networks would have a strong influence on public opinion and political decisionmaking was
much higher than the number of neuroscientists who indicated that they use these channels themselves. For example,
although less than 20% of the respondents said that they use
blogs or online commentaries to track science issues personally, many more (44% of the German scientists and 65% of
the US scientists) thought that these channels “can strongly
influence how the public thinks about science.”
The respondents, in other words, seem to have expected
the general public and policymakers to use these channels
286 BioScience • April 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 4
more often than they, themselves, do, and they perceived
these audiences to be susceptible to influence by these
channels. Although, on the aggregate level, there were few
significant differences between the two countries in the
number of scientists expecting an impact of journalistic
media on public opinion and policymaking, the neuro­
scientists in the United States were significantly more likely
to expect an influence from blogs and social networks than
were their German colleagues. Interestingly, the American
neuroscientists’ expectations were supported by recent data:
According to the last Science and Engineering Indicators,
almost half (48%) of Americans reported that they rely on
online sources other than journalistic ones for science- and
technology-related news (National Science Board 2012).
Moreover, although the scientists’ age was unrelated to
their assumption of the power of legacy (i.e., print and
on-air) journalistic media to influence public opinion and
policy decisions, the younger neuroscientists more often
expected such an impact from online journalism and from
blogs, as well. Surprisingly, there was no significant age difference in the presumed effect of social networks on public
opinion and political decisionmaking.
In summary, when the neuroscientists in this study seek
to keep up with science issues through information channels
outside the scientific culture, they continue to rely heavily on journalistic outlets such as newspapers, magazines,
radio, and television. They have clearly embraced online
analogs of those channels but, so far, show less interest in
monitoring science developments through blogs or other
types of social channels. A recent study among researchers
at UK universities concluded, similarly, that only around
13% of the respondents were regularly using social media
such as blogs and social networks for their work (Research
Information Network 2010). Scientists’ use of those newer
channels may be increasing, but this cross-sectional study
cannot demonstrate that. Our data show that researchers
younger than 40 years of age tend to access popular science
content through social networks more often than do older
researchers, but even in this younger age group, the use of
journalistic content dominates. We conclude that neuroscientists are taking advantage of a mix of “old” and “new”
information channels while clearly privileging narratives
vetted by journalistic production processes.
Most of the respondents also thought that these media
have an impact on political decisionmaking and public
opinion, and although their assessment of the impact of traditional and online journalistic science stories matched their
actual use of such stories, their assessment of the impact of
blogs and information in social networks on the public and
policymakers far exceeded their own current use of those
channels for gathering information about scientific topics.
Why do these data point to a continued reliance on journalistically mediated narratives, both traditional and online?
A few hypotheses come to mind:
Neuroscientists—like most people—are creatures of
habit and may be continuing a lifelong relationship with
www.biosciencemag.org
Professional Biologist
journalistic products without regard to their costs and
benefits. Patterns of media use are often developed over the
course of decades, which can make them difficult to break.
Individuals in societies such as Germany and the United
States continue to value the vetting process to which information is subjected in media channels. Reliance on journalistic channels means that the user can maintain an appropriate
level of surveillance over his or her environment without
being responsible for assessing the significance of every story
or the credibility of any single blogger or Internet site.
Scientists may understand and value journalists’ efforts to
be responsive to audiences. Journalists may be sensitive to
audience for both normative and economic reasons, but the
practice enhances the likelihood that journalistic accounts
of neuroscientific research will be narratively connected to
wider societal contexts. That, in turn, marks topics covered
by journalists as both legitimate and relevant to the wider
society, a phenomenon that can be beneficial to scientists
who seek public support for their efforts.
Individuals often turn to blogs and social network sites to
seek information about and reactions to political or other
social developments in a field. If popular narratives about
neuroscience are still at an early stage—that is, if they are
dominated by stories about fascinating and sometimes
heroic research solutions to challenging problems—there
may be little reason for various stakeholders to use blogs and
other social platforms to advance strategic messages or for
neuroscientists to attend to such channels.
Scientists may understand that neuroscience stories in
legacy media channels are likely to be of higher quality than
similar narratives found in blogs. Stories in social channels
are often crafted on the fly, without the help of experienced
editors who can point out holes in the narrative or who
can insist on rewriting and revision. Blog posts also tend to
be shorter narratives, bereft of the kind of complexity and
nuance possible only in long-form journalism.
Finally, we speculate that the scientists in this study may
value journalistic narratives because they appreciate that
journalism is indifferent to the interests and goals of science.
Although this may be perceived as a disadvantage of journalism from the scientists’ point of view, it is actually a key
advantage. Their role as external observers affords journalists credibility compared with scientific self-presentation.
Despite our respondents’ lackluster use of new information channels, such as social media and blogs, these ­channels
may play an important and supplementing (rather than
supplanting) role in the public communication of neuro­
science. They are sources for journalists, can serve as a
corrective factor when journalistic accounts are flawed, and
have the potential to engage interested audiences in science
(Wolinsky 2011).
These findings have a number of limitations. We posed
relatively general questions about channel preferences and
usage, and we asked those questions of individuals in only
one discipline—albeit a gargantuan one. In addition, these
results offer a single snapshot in time. The patterns reflected
www.biosciencemag.org here are likely to change in the coming years, with the next
generation of neuroscientists relying on Web 2.0 and social
media more strongly than does the current generation
(Nentwich and König 2012). Increased reliance on these
potentially nonjournalistic channels will, in turn, raise provocative questions about what constitutes a credible neuroscientist narrative for scientists, members of the public, and
policymakers and about how journalism will or will not fit
into that growing, highly decentralized landscape of information channels.
Acknowledgments
The present research was supported by a grant from the
German Federal Ministry for Education and Research. We
acknowledge Gisela Degen’s help and technical support in
conducting the online survey. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.
References cited
Abi-Rached JM. 2008. The implications of the new brain sciences: The
“Decade of the Brain” is over but its effects are now becoming visible
as neuropolitics and neuroethics, and in the emergence of neuroeconomies. EMBO Reports 9: 1158–1162.
Brumfiel G. 2009. Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature
458: 274–277.
Chafe R, Born KB, Slutsky AS, Laupacis A. 2011. The rise of people power.
Nature 472: 410–411.
Gonon F, Bezard E, Boraud T. 2011. Misrepresentation of neuroscience
data might give rise to misleading conclusions in the media: The case of
­attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLOS ONE 6 (art. e14618).
Heinemann LV, Heinemann T. 2010. “Optimise your brain!”—Popular
­science and its social implication. BioSocieties 5: 291–294.
Illes J, et al. 2010. Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuro­
science research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 61–69.
Kiernan V. 2003. Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication 25: 3–13.
National Science Board. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.
National Science Foundation. (7 January 2013; www.nsf.gov/statistics/
seind12)
Nentwich M, König R. 2012. Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the Age of
­Digital Social Networks. University of Chicago Press.
O’Connell G, De Wilde J, Haley J, Shuler K, Schafer B, Sandercock P,
­Wardlaw JW. 2011. The brain, the science and the media. EMBO
­Reports 12: 630–636.
O’Connor C, Rees G, Joffe H. 2012. Neuroscience in the public sphere.
Neuron 74: 220–226.
Price V. 1992. Public Opinion. Communications Concepts, vol. 4. Sage.
Research Information Network. 2010. If You Build It, Will They Come?
How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0. Research Information
Network.
Racine E, Waldmann S, Rosenberg J, Illes J. 2010. Contemporary neuro­
science in the media. Social Science and Medicine 71: 725–733.
Wolinsky H. 2011. More than a blog. EMBO Reports 12: 1102–1105.
Joachim Allgaier ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral researcher, Yin-Yueh
Lo is a PhD researcher, and Hans Peter Peters is a senior researcher at the
Institute of Neurosciences and Medicine, Ethics in the Neurosciences, at the
Jülich Research Center, in Jülich, Germany. Sharon Dunwoody (­dunwoody@
wisc.edu) is Evjue-Bascom Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass
Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dominique Brossard
is a ­professor in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University
of Wisconsin–Madison.
April 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 4 • BioScience 287