Interactional Alarms: Experts' Framing of Health Risks in Live Broadcast News Interviews.

This study examined how experts frame health risks in real-time interactions with journalists. Though there is evidence that experts influence media framing of health risks, the ways they respond to journalists' agendas in real-time interactions have yet to be explored. This paper examines instances of risk assessment extracted from a corpus of news interviews to determine how expert assessments were requested and provided. The analysis reveals that experts rarely deliver their assessments neutrally but rather treat these exchanges as opportunities for framing or reframing the topic. Their framing is shown to be responsive to journalistic agendas and to those who experts understand to be accountable when their assessment is elicited. These findings suggest ways in which news interviews can be useful in health communication. The implications for experts, journalists, and public information officers who plan to use interviews for this purpose are discussed.

Our findings, my method: Framing science in televised interviews.

The public communication of science and technology largely depends on their framing in the news media, but scientists' role in this process has only been explored indirectly. This study focuses on storied accounts told by scientists when asked to present their research or provide expert advice in the course of a news interview. A total of 150 items from a current affairs talk show broadcast in the Israeli media were explored through a methodology combining narrative and conversation analysis. Using the concept of framing as originally proposed by Erving Goffman, we show that researchers use personal accounts as a way of reframing news stories introduced by the program hosts. Elements of method and rationale, which are usually considered technical and are shunned in journalistic reports, emerged as a crucial element in the accounts that experts themselves provided. The implications for framing research and science communication training are discussed.

From pathology to chemistry and back: James W. Cook and early chemical carcinogenesis research.

During the 1920s, concerns over occupational cancers in the tar, coal-gas and synthetic dye industries stimulated investigations into the responsible carcinogenic agents. Chemical pathologist Ernest L. Kennaway and organic chemist James W. Cook at London's Cancer Hospital Research Institute were the first to identify pure carcinogenic coal-tar polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Cook, who joined Kennaway in 1929, synthesised and tested hundreds of compounds, seeking to identify the exact relationship between chemical constitution and cancer. This paper reviews Cook's research programme until the early 1940s, and the attempt of his collaborator, Cambridge biochemist Joseph Needham, to identify the biological basis of carcinogenesis. In this, they drew upon structural and functional analogies between recently discovered hormones and carcinogens. Cook established novel ways of studying chemical carcinogenesis, although conflicting empirical results and understandings of cancerous growth militated against the development of a coherent mechanistic theory.

Between biochemists and embryologists -- the biochemical study of embryonic induction in the 1930s.

The discovery by Hans Spemann of the "organizer" tissue and its ability to induce the formation of the amphibian embryo's neural tube inspired leading embryologists to attempt to elucidate embryonic inductions' underlying mechanism. Joseph Needham, who during the 1930s conducted research in biochemical embryology, proposed that embryonic induction is mediated by a specific chemical entity embedded in the inducing tissue, surmising that chemical to be a hormone of sterol-like structure. Along with embryologist Conrad H. Waddington, they conducted research aimed at the isolation and functional characterization of the underlying agent. As historians clearly pointed out, embryologists came to question Needham's biochemical approach; he failed to locate the hormone he sought and eventually abandoned his quest. Yet, this study finds that the difficulties he ran into resulted primarily from the limited conditions for conducting his experiments at his institute. In addition, Needham's research reflected the interests of leading biochemists in hormone and cancer research, because it offered novel theoretical models and experimental methods for engaging with the function of the hormones and carcinogens they isolated. Needham and Waddington were deterred neither by the mounting challenges nor by the limited experimental infrastructure. Like their colleagues in hormone and cancer research, they anticipated difficulties in attempting to establish causal links between complex biological phenomena and simple chemical triggering.