The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: competing voices, contrasting frames

This exploratory study of Canadian and US public opinion about gene technologies is based primarily on survey data collected by the Government of Canada, with media data from a widely available commercial database (LexisNexis) used in an illustrative case study of the apparent resonance between the climate of opinion and media frames in different regions of the two countries. The study uses regression modeling, factor analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the structure of the opinion data, concluding that observed opinion differences might be understood in terms of the greater number of individuals in the United States who belong to an identifiable opinion group that believes these technologies are benign and must be developed (termed, for convenience, “true believers”), as well as a somewhat greater number in Canada who belong to a group believing that ordinary people should be able to decide based on ethical considerations (“ethical populists”). However, the most common group in each country is made up of people who believe risks or costs and benefits should be weighed in developing policy, and that this should be done by experts (“utilitarians”). This group and two other cluster groups identified in the analysis (“moral authoritarians” and “democratic pragmatists”) exist in roughly equivalent proportions in both countries, with some regional variation evident within each. While these observations represent descriptive findings only, they nevertheless underscore the complexity of the opinion climate and problematize the development of consensus policy. Preliminary analysis of news coverage of selected gene technologies revealed both similarities and differences in patterns of news discourse between Canada and the US. A sample of stem cell coverage for February 2004, following the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle (during which the announcement of new Korean research on human cloning was made), was used as a case study for a pilot media analysis

Risk communication for emerging technologies: A mini-roadmap

This document summarizes the results of a workshop on risk communication that took place in January, 2009, involving participants from across North America but concentrated in the Western U.S. The workshop considered risk communication challenges and opportunities across a range of technologies and strategies. The discussions suggested that potential synergies exist across risk-related topics, as well as across disciplines, and highlighted the need for constructing opportunities for members of this research community to exchange ideas and results on an ongoing basis

Television\u27s \u27Nova\u27 and the construction of scientific truth

Argues that the Public Broadcasting Service\u27s science series NOVA dramatizes science for an elite audience. Notes that a variety of devices are used to maintain dramatic tension and to define the scientist as a special type of person. Argues that the failure of NOVA to demystify science has ideological significance

Equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate

Contrary to common assumptions within the scientific community, media effects are largely long-term and indirect, coverage does not always overrepresent fringe positions, and messages are interpreted actively by audience members. Lay publics associate more risk with science and technology in their social context than with the underlying science itself, and general attitudes toward science influence the degree of risk associated with particular new developments. Biotechnology, new and highly complex, is used as a case to further explore media effects issues for science. The range of issues that surfaces when nonscientists are asked to evaluate risks is not easily influenced by the narrow, source-dominated coverage characteristic of this topic. The interests of the scientific community would be better served by news addressing the full range of ethical, social, economic, and policy issues with which the public is concerned

Biotechnology, media and public opinion across national boundaries

The biotechnology controversy highlights national differences in policy processes, ethical systems, and value choices. The debate over food biotechnology in particular has pitted a vision of science as inherently progressive against one of science as an instrument of economic imperialism. The media have become implicated in this drama. Within U.S. scientific and policy circles, anti-biotechnology sentiment elsewhere has often been attributed to ignorance inflamed by sensationalistic news. This argument trivializes people’s actual concerns, which in democratic societies merit attention even where not scientifically based. In fact, scientific knowledge is a poor predictor of support for biotechnology, a significant minority in the U.S. has reservations, and U.S. and European elite news accounts of biotech are quite similar. This paper reviews comparative media and opinion data on the U.S. and Europe, looks briefly at the representation of the African situation in U.S. media, and suggests some implications relevant to African journalism

Cloning: A study in news production

In retrospect, the 1997 media furor over the cloning of Dolly the sheep was remarkable not so much for any lasting effects on opinion or policy it might have produced as for changing the frame of public debate about biotechnology generally to one that explicitly incorporated ethical considerations. This essay discusses the nature and implications of this shift, based on the author\u27s study of elite US newspaper coverage of this controversy up to and just beyond Dolly\u27s momentary fame. While ethical considerations found their way into mainstream media discourse about biotechnology in ways that had previously been uncommon and that may have had significant influence on the subsequent history of the debate, this happened with little visible long-term disruption of status quo institutional control over outcomes. The cloning debate may even have diverted public attention from some aspects of the biotechnology controversy at the same time as it created new public space for ethical debate over others

Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development

Science communicators and the broader scientific community often expect media information campaigns to mold attitudes about science and technology in predictable ways. But resistance to technology is not always based on ignorance, and the ability of media-based education to directly shape opinions is actually quite limited. This article uses data from a recent U.S. national survey on opinions about biotechnology to argue that trust in institutional actors is a bigger factor than genetic knowledge in predicting encouragement for specific applications of biotechnology. The results have implications for the practice of science, as well as for the practice of science communication

Public discourse and scientific controversy: A spiral of silence analysis of biotechnology opinion in the U.S.

Spiral-of-silence theory tries to account for the dynamics through which visible dissent decreases as public opinion begins to appear hegemonic; it argues that fear of social isolation inhibits the expression of opinions perceived to be in the minority. This analysis applies spiral-of-silence theory to public opinion about biotechnology in the United States. Although comparisons to Europe may disguise this fact, a substantial minority of United States citizens have reservations about biotechnology and genetic engineering. Our exploratory analysis reveals some evidence that a spiral of silence developed for these issues, as well as uncovering more willingness to speak among those who believe themselves more knowledgeable about science and differences in willingness among groups who apply different forms of moral reasoning to biotechnology issues. The results have implications for recognizing the privileged position of consequentialist or utilitarian arguments about science and technology in United States society

Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response

A study of themes arising within focus group discussions of U.S. lay publics (both student and nonstudent adults) in response to newspaper coverage of biotechnology is consistent with the assertion that media frames and reader schemas interact to produce an understanding of a newly emerging issue. Newspaper coverage heavily dominated by institutional sources and dealing with only a narrow range of issues may be limiting the terms of public debate in an unhealthy way. Readers reason by analogy with related and sometimes unrelated developments in trying to understand biotechnology, based on schemas reflecting their general understanding of science

The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: Competing voices, contrasting frames

This exploratory study of Canadian and US public opinion about gene technologies is based primarily on survey data collected by the Government of Canada, with media data from a widely available commercial database (LexisNexis) used in an illustrative case study of the apparent resonance between the climate of opinion and media frames in different regions of the two countries. The study uses regression modeling, factor analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the structure of the opinion data, concluding that observed opinion differences might be understood in terms of the greater number of individuals in the United States who belong to an identifiable opinion group that believes these technologies are benign and must be developed (termed, for convenience, “true believers”), as well as a somewhat greater number in Canada who belong to a group believing that ordinary people should be able to decide based on ethical considerations (“ethical populists”). However, the most common group in each country is made up of people who believe risks or costs and benefits should be weighed in developing policy, and that this should be done by experts (“utilitarians”). This group and two other cluster groups identified in the analysis (“moral authoritarians” and “democratic pragmatists”) exist in roughly equivalent proportions in both countries, with some regional variation evident within each. While these observations represent descriptive findings only, they nevertheless underscore the complexity of the opinion climate and problematize the development of consensus policy. Preliminary analysis of news coverage of selected gene technologies revealed both similarities and differences in patterns of news discourse between Canada and the US. A sample of stem cell coverage for February 2004, following the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle (during which the announcement of new Korean research on human cloning was made), was used as a case study for a pilot media analysis