Biotechnology, communication and the public: Keys to delve into the social perception of science

Authors

  • Dominique Brossard Department of Life Sciences Communication of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA).

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.9.11347

Keywords:

biotechnology, communication, public understanding of science, genetic engineering, GMOs

Abstract

The latest biotechnology applications allow for faster and cheaper gene editing than ever before. Many people are calling for a public debate on these issues, including the social, cultural and ethical implications of these applications. On the other hand, the information available to citizens is sometimes contradictory and communication that takes all these aspects into account is important and increasingly necessary. Therefore, understanding public attitudes towards biotechnology should be a priority for the work ahead.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Dominique Brossard, Department of Life Sciences Communication of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA).

Professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA). Her research focuses on the intersection between science, media and policy. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an internationally known expert in public opinion dynamics related to controversial scientific issues. She has published numerous research articles in journals such as Science , Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , Science Communication , Public Understanding of Science and Communication Research . She has also worked on reports for the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on various occasions, one of the most recent ones, on GE crops.

References

Akin, H., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. In K. Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3

Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The «nasty effect»: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12009

Brossard, D. (2012). Social challenges: Public opinion and agricultural biotechnology. In J. Popp, M. Jahn, M. Matlock, & N. Kemper (Eds.), The role of biotechnology in a sustainable food supply(pp. 17–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14096–14101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110

Brossard, D. (2014). Science, its publics and new media: Reflecting on the present and future of science communication. Mètode Science Studies Journal - Annual Review, 4, 193–197. doi: 10.7203/metode.80.3123

Brossard, D., Nesbitt, C., & Shanahan, J. (Eds.). (2007). The media, the public, and agricultural biotechnology.Cambridge, MA: CABI/Oxford University Press.

Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edl003 

Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. doi: 10.1177/0963662507087304

Covello, V. T. (2010). Risk communication. In H. Frumkin (Ed.), Environmental health: From local to global(pp. 1099–1140). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science. In S. Krimsky, & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk(pp. 251–273). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Gould, F., Amasino, R. M., Brossard, D., Buell, C. R., Dixon, R. A., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., ... Whitaker, R. J. (2017). Elevating the conversation about GE crops. Nature Biotechnology, 35(4), 302–304. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3841

Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J, & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.341

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 

Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S. W., Wu, J., Lee, Y., Suzuki, K., … Mitalipov, S. (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548, 413–419. doi: 10.1038/nature23305

Merriam-Webster, T. (2018). Biotechnology. In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biotechnology

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24623

Nature. (2017). Gene editing in legal limbo in Europe. Nature, 542, 392. doi: 10.1038/542392a

Pew Research Center. (2016). Smartphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies but advanced economies still have higher rates of technology use. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/internet-access-growing-worldwide-but-remains-higher-in-advanced-economies

Reuters Institute. (2017). Digital news report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf

Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., Howell, E. L., Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., & Hardy, B. W. (2017). U. S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 357(6351), 553–554. doi: 10.1126/science.aan3708

Yeo, S., Cacciatore, M., & Scheufele, D. (2015). News selectivity and beyond: Motivated reasoning in a changing media environment. In O. Jandura, T. Petersen, C. Mothes, & A. M. Schielicke (Eds.), Publizistik und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung(pp. 83–104). Wiesbaden: Springer.

Yeo, S. K., Xenos, M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2015). Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 172–191. doi: 10.1177/0002716214557782

Downloads

Published

2019-03-06

How to Cite

Brossard, D. (2019). Biotechnology, communication and the public: Keys to delve into the social perception of science. Metode Science Studies Journal, (9), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.9.11347
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    2589
  • PDF
    1099

Issue

Section

#Biotech. The need for biotechnology communication

Metrics

Similar Articles

> >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.