Woo-suk Hwang is a good example of universal news. Both his promising advances in therapeutic cloning and the further disclosure of the big lie made headlines around the world. The same media that, in May 2005, catapulted this South Korean scientist to the top charts of research had him listed down, a few months later, as one of the greatest scientific swindlers. According to the press, the case was a hard blow for biomedical publications, which should have to reconsider their editorial methods. However, no mass communication media exerted any form of (known) self-criticism on their role throughout this case.
Hwang’s investigations, his expectations and disappointments, clearly illustrate the virtues and deficiencies of science journalism. Serious reflection arises on the path undertaken by scientific journals, increasingly concerned about their presence in the mass media, or on the task of the journalist who has a duty to inform or train the public on complex matters such as therapeutic cloning. These are two examples of subjects raised in this third debate on science journalism, organized by the Esteve Foundation and gathered in this booklet.
Hugo Cerdà, journalist of El País Health and Future supplements, Enrique Coperías, subdirector of Muy Interesante magazine, Joaquim Elcacho, science and environment journalist of Avui, and Pablo Francescutti, from the Advanced Communication Studies of Madrid’s Rey Juan Carlos University, were the four representatives of the science communication side. On the scientist side Jaume Baguñà, from the Department of Genetics of the University of Barcelona, CSIC’s member Acaimo González, Francisco Murillo, from the Department of Genetics of the University of Murcia, and Francesca Vidal, from the Cell Biology Unit of the Autonomous University of Barcelona.
All their comments and opinions on the diverse episodes of therapeutic cloning published in the media are gathered in this publication, together with the articles that served as a starting point for discussion, published in the international newspapers Chosun Ilbo (South Korea), Libération (France),Clarín (Argentina) and USA Today (United States).
|Índice||[wpdm id=432 type=”btn”]|
|Introducción||F. Bosch / S. Erill||[wpdm id=428 type=”btn”]|
|Participantes||[wpdm id=427 type=”btn”]|
|1. Síntesis del debate||P. Morales||[wpdm id=429 type=”btn”]|
|2. Ocho puntos de vista||[wpdm id=430 type=”btn”]|
|3. Criterios de selección de los artículos||P. Morales||[wpdm id=431 type=”btn”]|
|4. Artículos seleccionados. Las expectativas||[wpdm type=”btn3″]|
|5. Artículos seleccionados: Los desencantos||[wpdm type=”btn3″]|
- 1. Síntesis del debate
- P. Morales
- 2. Ocho puntos de vista
- 3. Criterios de selección de los artículos
- P. Morales
- Debates sobre periodismo científico. Expectativas y desencantos acerca de la clonación terapéutica Índice
- Debates sobre periodismo científico. Expectativas y desencantos acerca de la clonación terapéutica Introducción
- F. Bosch / S. Erill
- Debates sobre periodismo científico. Expectativas y desencantos acerca de la clonación terapéutica Participantes