This response addresses George Claassen's review of The Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism. The review raises several salient points; however, the biggest criticism of this work arises from a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Palgrave Handbook series. We wholeheartedly agree that there are lessons for the field of science communication. Engaging with more diverse perspectives and adopting a global lens for exploration of science and health journalism are priorities for the field. These are common themes in the Handbook, which we believe is still a useful resource to help facilitate these much-needed explorations.

 

Publisher's note: this letter refers to Book Review: Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism

Stem cell research and therapies have been the topic of hype in the news media in Europe, America, Asia and the Pacific. Using a computational approach, we examine stem cell hype in the news media in the unique political, media and cultural context of Vietnam. The results indicate a pattern of the news media portraying this medical advancement as a source of national pride and achievement to tap into consumers' patriotism. The computational frame analysis method was shown to be efficient, helpful, and useful when researchers are confronted with urgent social, technological or public health matters. Findings from this study suggest that there is a need for national and international efforts to investigate news media content that misrepresents the current stage of stem cell treatment efficacy and risks.

In May 2021, the World Health Organization announced a new naming system for SARS-CoV-2 variants intended to replace potentially stigmatising names referencing geographic locations. A quantitative content analysis was conducted to identify the names and frames present in Australian news media coverage before and after the new names were announced. Results demonstrate uptake of the new names but also indicate the potential for intended outcomes of de-stigmatisation to be compromised, particularly by persistent negative framing. These findings indicate that future health communication efforts might be strengthened by integrating disease naming considerations into ongoing public health preparedness efforts and support ongoing scholarly inquiry into naming and framing in news media communication.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed media professionals to the complex challenge of communicating scientific uncertainty. Using an automated, dictionary-based approach, we examined how different types of publications addressed scientific uncertainty at both the onset and the declared end of the pandemic. In the early stages of this health crisis, both general interest and science-focused media showed increased scientific uncertainty scores, with specialised outlets using scientific uncertainty markers more frequently. When the pandemic was declared over, science-focused publications maintained high scientific uncertainty levels across all stories, while general interest media reverted to pre-COVID-19 levels. The findings provide insights for journalists and science communicators.

Realizing the ascribed potential of generative AI for health information seeking depends on recipients’ perceptions of quality. In an online survey (N = 294), we aimed to investigate how German individuals evaluate AI-generated information compared to expert-generated content on the influenza vaccination. A follow-up experiment (N = 1,029) examined the impact of authorship disclosure on perceived argument quality and underlying mechanisms. The findings indicated that expert arguments were rated higher than AI-generated arguments, particularly when authorship was revealed. Trust in science and the Standing Committee on Vaccination accentuated these differences, while trust in AI and innovativeness did not moderate this effect.

This comprehensive compilation of a wide variety of science communication scholars investigating science and health journalism, brought together by editors Kim Walsh-Childers and Merryn McKinnon, leaves one with mixed impressions.

 

 

Publisher's note: a Letter by Merryn McKinnon and Kim Walsh-Childers has been published on September 5th 2025 and is available here

 

As the late teen and early adulthood years have been identified as a period in life where opinions regarding politics are formed, it is important to understand how the highly politicized science issue — the COVID-19 pandemic — may have influenced young adults’ trust in science and how they come to know the accuracy of science information. In order to explore these topics, this study employed a series of focus groups with college students (N = 22). Findings show that while focus group participants were largely trusting of science and science institutions, they were wary of government and politician interference in science and scientists who lack the integrity and benevolence to act in the best interests of the public.

This scoping review elucidated the characteristics of polarized scientific digital messages credited by researchers for studying the impact of content on people's perceptions. Inclusion criteria encompassed discourse and content analysis studies examining the syntactic and lexical features of polarized messages in online science communication, as well as crossover and randomized information intervention studies. Studies without sufficient detail for data extraction or that did not address message characteristics were excluded. After these exclusions, 10 studies were evaluated for the outcomes. Characteristics of polarized messages were observed to include topic dependency, single viewpoint, discredit of opposing views, emphasis on the minority and flaws of concurrent discourses, and uses of assertive statements, intensifiers, controversy, partisanship, skepticism, sarcasm, vague lexicons, and expert opinion support. As a result, we propose a system of codification for identifying and characterizing polarized discourses in science communication digital messages that can be employed in further content analysis studies.

Press releases remain an important link between academia and the media. While science communication is a goal of universities, public relations is also becoming increasingly salient. The press release, as a significant tool for both science communication and institutional public relations, means that the fields are entwined, prompting us to propose viewing science communication and public relations on a continuum. Based on a quantitative content analysis of all press releases sent out by a Belgian university during the COVID-19 pandemic we show what this university communicates about and identify how science communication can be used for public relation purposes and vice versa.

This study describes US-based physicians' online public communication practices, particularly on the social media platform Twitter/X, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw on 28 semi-structured interviews to examine how they responded to the unique COVID-19 context with respect to each of the four features of post-normal science (PNS): facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. Our analysis reveals that the pandemic shifted what, why, and how physicians used the platform, and with whom they aimed to communicate. We discuss the implications of these changes in their online communication habits, discourses, and representations around social media as a reaction to the context of PNS brought about by the pandemic.