Abstract
On March 10, 2019, 60 Minutes reported the development of a potentially life-altering gene therapy for Sickle Cell Disease (SCD). Despite this therapy’s potential for cure, SCD community members’ reactions ranged from skepticism to fear due to the use of deactivated HIV as a vector for transporting the corrected gene into stem cells, thus repairing the faulty gene in SCD. Using a mental models framework, we analyze how 60 Minutes attempted to explain this research and how audiences reacted on social media. Specifically, we show how 60 Minutes’ treatment of given versus new information, as well as the journalists’ failure to account for the specific audiences with the most at stake, led to misunderstandings that contributed to ongoing fear and mistrust of the scientific community. We conclude with recommendations for how journalists should approach accommodating science when that science has particular impacts on minoritized and marginalized groups.
- Journal
- Rhetoric of Health and Medicine
- Published
- 2022-04-26
- DOI
- 10.5744/rhm.2022.5004
- CompPile
- Open Access
- OA PDF Gold
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related Articles
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Apr 2025Nirvana Tanoukhi; Nicholas Dunn
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Sep 2024Joshua Hananmodern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism composition theory genre theory discourse analysis cultural rhetorics argument qualitative research quantitative research digital rhetoric social media grammar and mechanics gender and writing disability studies public rhetoric affect and writing body and rhetoric editorial matter
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Sep 2024Arthur E. Walzer
-
The Peer Review Sep 2024Liz A. W. Thomae; Aleena A. Jacob
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Jun 2024Sam Shear