Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038970›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2025

The ethics of science journalism in medicine: a science and technology studies approach.

Rahman Sharifzadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Rahman SharifzadehAssistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reexamining science journalism through the constructivist lens of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the present paper argues that this perspective promotes a more responsible approach to reporting scientific discoveries in medicine. The dominant anti-constructivist, realist approach often results in what we term "dramatic modalization," which attributes greater facticity and universality to scientific findings than they actually possess at the time of publication, leading to significant moral consequences. To illustrate this, we will first explore the STS perspective as a framework for understanding the construction of facts in practice. Next, through a discourse analysis of two historical cases in medical journalism-the MMR-autism link and the depression-serotonin connection-we will demonstrate that the realist media coverage of these cases engaged in dramatic modalization, resulting in tangible moral repercussions. We hereby propose an alternative STS model for science journalism in medicine, arguing that it offers a more morally responsible approach.

Indexed as

ConstructivismLatourPublic trust.Science communicationScience journalism ethics

Identifiers

PMID42038970
PMCPMC13106634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.