ArticleFrontiers in sociology2025
Comparative analysis of media coverage concerning the social implications on three life sciences in Japan during 1991-2020.
Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Media coverage is an important determinant of the social conception and public understanding of science. Therefore, understanding the media framing of science and technology is important for science communication. As such, we try to determine the frames that are significant in news coverage concerning science and technology, whether the dominant frames changed over time, and whether there are any overlooked frames. To this end, we focused on news articles on multiple life-science fields in Japan to examine the ethical, legal, and social implications covered in the media of three fields: genetic modification, stem cell science and regenerative medicine, and brain-neuroscience. We examined seven frames (i.e., instrumental science, risky science, juggernaut science, techno-nationalism, governance, communication matters, and trust in science) related to the ethical and social implications for the three technologies. We collected 37,009 articles from the newspaper database. After a pilot analysis of the collected articles based on text mining, we coded a total of 1,805 articles from 1991 to 2020 using random sampling. Our results showed that the frames varied among the three technologies over time and no frame synchronization was observed. This implies that the media coverage of each technology was independent of those of the other technologies. A trend common to all technologies was that the frame "instrumental science" was dominant, meaning that positive opinions predominate in the Japanese media coverage of life sciences. This result suggests ethical issues of life sciences were often missing in Japanese media discourse. An urgent task is to bridge the gap between the discussions of ethics communities and the media coverage. Our study provides evidence of the potential social implications of life science according to assumed for public understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.