Synthetic Biology in the Press

Media Portrayal in Sweden and Italy
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 45)


Synthetic biology is a rapidly evolving field which potentially can change how we live in and understand the world. Given its potential impact it is important to inform and involve the public so that it gains a proper understanding of synthetic biology and is in a position to assess its future applications and implications. This study investigates through qualitative content analysis the synthetic biology press coverage in Sweden and Italy between 2009 and 2013. The three major newspapers of each country were considered a good example of what was offered to the public in a period which witnessed important scientific advancements of the field and consequent media resonance. The framing of the articles was analyzed in the light of the idea that mass media not only inform the public but also contribute to the shaping of ideas. Language was analysed and found to be generally adequate. The topics were presented in an overall positive and optimistic tone, which was reflected also in the benefits and risks envisioned. The two countries can be considered rather different in many social and cultural respects, yet besides a few differences (mainly quantitative), striking similarities were found, probably related to a marked dependence on the common sources of the articles and the lack of critical scrutiny on the behalf of the media.


  1. Arkin A, Berry D, Church C et al (2009) What’s in a name? Nat Biotech 27(12):1071–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Árnason V (2012) Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Underst Sci 22(8):927–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6(7):533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley P, Kyvik S (2011) Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Underst Sci 20(1):48–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattachary D, Calitz JP, Hunter A (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue. TNS-BMRB ReportGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res 6(1):97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham JC (1987) How superstition won and science lost: popularizing science and health in the United States. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM (2003) Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Underst Sci 12(2):183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N (1997) What makes mainstream media mainstream. Z Magazine. OctoberGoogle Scholar
  10. Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009) Pictures of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delhey J, Newton K (2005) Predicting cross-national levels of trust: global pattern or nordic exceptionalism. Eur Sociol Rev 21(4):311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunwoody S (1987) Scientists, journalists, and the news. Chem Eng News 65(46):47–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2013) Eurobarometer Responsible Research and Innovation, Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 401. Brussels: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedom House (2009) Freedom of the Press 2009. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  15. Freedom House (2010) Freedom of the Press 2010.–Final%20Booklet_5May.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  16. Freedom House (2011) Freedom of the Press 2011. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  17. Freedom House (2012) Freedom of the Press 2012. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  18. Freedom House (2013). Freedom of the Press 2013. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  19. Gibson DG, Glass GI, Lartigue C et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gloede F, Hennen L (2002) A difference that makes a difference? Participatory technology assessment in Germany. In: Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) Participatory technology assessment. European Perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, London, pp 92–107Google Scholar
  21. Global Network of Science Academies (2014) IAP Statement on Realising Global Potential in Synthetic Biology: Scientific Opportunities and Good Governance. IAP ReportGoogle Scholar
  22. Gschmeidler B, Seiringer A (2012) “Knight in shining armour” or “Frankenstein’s creation”? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media. Public Underst Sci 21(2):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen J (2010) Biotechnology and public engagement in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansson MG (2008) The private sphere. An emotional territory and its agent. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2011) Synthetic biology: building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genet Soc 30(4):375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hennen L (2013) Parliamentary technology assessment in Europe and the role of public participation. In: O’Doherty K, Einsiedl E (eds) Public engagement and emerging technologies. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  27. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iyengar S (1991) Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Publisher, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Craig Venter Institute (2010) First self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell. [Press release] Retrieved from: Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  30. Jones RAL (2014) Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelle A (2013) Beyond patchwork precaution in the dual-use governance of synthetic biology. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1121–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kronberger N, Holtz P, Kerbe W et al (2009) Communicating Synthetic biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W (2012) Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 21(2):174–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruvand M (2012) Dr. Soundbite: the making of an expert source in science and medical stories. Sci Commun 34(5):566–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackenzie A (2013) From validating to objecting: public appeals in synthetic biology. Sci Cult 22(4):476–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCombs ME, Shaw DL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin Q 36(2):176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayring P (2000) Qualitative content analysis. FQS 1(2) Art. 20. Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  38. Morgan D (2002) A content analysis of media coverage of health care and the uninsured 2002. Frame Works Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelkin D (2001) Beyond risk: reporting about genetics in the Post-Asilomar Press. Perspect Biol Med 44(2):199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson B (2014) Cultural divide. Nature 509(7499):152–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson TE, Clawson RA, Oxley ZM (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. Am Polit Sci Rev 91(3):567–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. IJPP 8(2):36–70Google Scholar
  43. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oldham P, Hall S, Burton G (2012) Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS ONE 7(4):e34368. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pauwels E (2013) Communication: mind the metaphor. Nature 500(7464):523–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pauwels E, Lovell A, Rouge E (2012) Trends in American and European Press coverage of synthetic biology. Synbio 4 (Synthetic Biology Project). Wilson CenterGoogle Scholar
  47. Peters HP, Lang JT, Sawicka M et al (2007) Culture and technological innovation: impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany. Int J Public Opin Res 19(2):191–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic biology: scope, applications and implications. The Royal Academy of Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmidt M (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety. Syst Synth Biol 2(1–2):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (SBRCG) (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK. Research Councils UK. Technology Strategy Board, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  53. Valkenburg PM, Semetko HA, Vreese CHD (1999) The effects of news frames on readers’ thoughts and recall. Commun Res 26(5):550–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Venter CJ (2010) Craig venter: watch me unveil “synthetic life”. [Video file] Retrieved from: Accessed 05 Jun 2015
  55. Wareham C, Nardini C (2013) Policy on synthetic biology: deliberation, probability, and the precautionary paradox. Bioethics 29(2):118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A et al (2012) Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLOS Medicine 9(9):e1001308. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research Ethics and BioethicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations