Cancer in the News (2019)
The issue of cancer and cancer drugs holds a considerable presence in the Norwegian media. The public interest in the issue has been especially persistent in recent years with the rise and alleged promise of precision medicine.
Main content
Though cancer treatment becomes聽more personalized and, sometimes,聽more effective, increasingly many lives聽are lost to the illness as populations聽age and become more prone to cancer聽disease. Simultaneously, increasing聽amounts of public health budgets are聽devoted to cancer treatment, and the聽ensuing priority-setting dilemmas both聽engage and provoke within the general聽public. In the news, the issue of cancer聽and cancer drugs is thus cloaked in聽controversy, within a public discourse聽that heavily emphasizes the tragic聽choices aspect of this issue.
An analysis of over 500 Norwegian聽newspaper articles on the issue of聽cancer and cancer drugs identified four聽premises which seemingly underlie聽the entire discourse: (1) cancer drugs聽are de facto expensive and we need not聽question why; (2) these drugs work, and聽there is no need to question their efficacy;聽(3) any health benefit for a cancer patient聽is an absolute good; whatever time聽can be won is a blessing, and there is聽no need to consider what shape that聽time will have; (4) patients and doctors聽own the truth about cancer and cancer聽drugs, and 鈥渙utsider鈥� perspectives are聽superfluous.
A separate study on how聽cancer research is presented in the news聽by actors within the field of cancer, as聽well as by journalists, proved that the聽framings are strongly influenced by聽what the actors themselves imagine to聽be a good and attainable future of cancer聽treatment. These visions, however,聽seem to be characterized by normative聽understandings of what the future聽should hold. Three main future visions聽proved prominent: (1) personalized聽medicine will revolutionize cancer聽treatment, (2) artificial intelligence will聽make diagnosis and treatment more聽efficient, and (3) cancer is Norway鈥檚 next聽billion-dollar industry.
Our studies on the framing of cancer聽and cancer research in the news聽suggest that the storytelling on cancer聽is considerably lacking in nuance. The聽adherence to the above-mentioned聽premises arguably contributes to false聽understandings both of what cancer聽research and new cancer treatments are,聽and of the promise they hold. This serves聽to increase the current discrepancy聽between public expectat ions,聽medical possibilities and financial聽constraints. Further, these framings聽do not devote adequate attention to聽the ethical and societal challenges聽that may arise from researchers鈥� own聽unambiguously positive presentations聽of the future of cancer treatment.
Overall, the framing of the issue seems聽to be derived from two fundamental聽assumptions; (1) that contemporary聽cancer treatment is and must be聽an issue of tragic choices, within a聽healthcare system of winners and聽losers 鈥� between patients who gain聽access to new and expensive treatments,聽and those who are denied it. And (2)聽that cancer research and the future of聽cancer treatment remains an聽 indubitable聽oasis of hope, with socio-technological聽imaginaries swarming with promise as聽a panacea for the tragedy that is cancer.
The general public鈥檚 understanding of聽scientific progress 鈥� both its promise聽and its limits 鈥� on the issue of cancer聽and cancer drugs, is determined largely聽by its presentation in the news. In the聽current media climate, the framing of聽cancer stems from the above-mentioned聽premises as well as scientists鈥� own聽future visions, and is subsequently聽compounded by a deterministic and聽unnuanced journalistic presentation.
This results in simplistic and faulty聽public understandings of the issue聽as a whole. It should be a central聽objective to researchers that their work is聽portrayed accurately and accountably聽in the media, and in a manner which聽provides the general public with an聽understanding of the real value of聽that research. In order to achieve聽this, researchers must strive for both聽awareness as well as ownership of聽how their findings are presented in the聽public discourse, and of flaws in this聽presentation.
Text:聽Mille S Stenmarck & Irmelin W Nilsen, CCBIO