How the Popular Press and Media Influence Scientific Interpretations and Public Opinion

  • Clifford J. Sherry
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 274)


Scientists and engineers tend to think of publication in terms of refereed journals. The editor of such a journal typically sends the manuscript to two or more referees. The referees, who are, theoretically, impartial experts in the field, evaluate the manuscript to determine if it is worthy of publication in the journal. The principal reasons for rejection are lack of originality and/or inappropriate methods and/or interpretations. If the referees recommend rejection, they must explain the problems with the manuscript and/or the experiment(s). The authors have an opportunity to respond to the criticisms and resubmit the manuscript.


Print Medium Popular Medium Trade Book Editorial Content Selling Periodical 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Brodeur. “The Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk, and the Cover-Up,” Norton, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Brodeur, Annals of law: the asbestos industry on trial., The New Yorker., June 8, 15, 22, and July 1, (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Brodeur, Annals of radiation, The New Yorker, June 12, 19, 26 (1989); July 9, (1990); December 7, (1992).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Blumberg, Paul Brodeur’s war on electromagnetic fields, Washington Journalism Review, 40-44, January/February (1991).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Wingren and M. Karlsson. “Mortality Trends for Leukemia In Selected Countries. Trends in Cancer Mortality in Industrial Countries,” in: D. L. Davis and D. Hoel, eds., Annals Of The New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 609, 280–88 (1990).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Tompkins, Hazards of electromagnetic fields to human reproduction, Fertility and Sterility, 53, 185 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.L. Carney, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Is it safe? Clinical Electroencephalography 20, XI (1990).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.B. Sibbison, USA: Danger from electromagnetic fields, The Lancet, 336, 106 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.R. Jauchem, Hazards of electromagnetic fields to human reproduction: What information is in the scientific literature, Fertility and Sterility, 54, 955 (1990a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.R. Jauchem, Magnetic resonance imaging: Is it safe? Clinical Electroencephalography, 21, IX–XI (1990b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.R. Jauchem, Electromagnetic fields: Is there a danger.? The Lancet, 336, 884 (1990c).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.R. Ashley, Book Review (Currents Of Death), IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society Magazine, 32, 45–48 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.R. Jauchem, Epidemiologic studies of electric and magnetic fields and cancer: A case study of distortions by the media, J. Clin. Epidemiol 45, 1137–42 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clifford J. Sherry
    • 1
  1. 1.Systems Research LaboratoriesSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations