Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of Media-Scientists’ Relationship on Crop Biotechnology Debate in Uganda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Agriculture and Ecosystem Resilience in Sub Saharan Africa

Part of the book series: Climate Change Management ((CCM))

Abstract

Individuals often turn to the media for information about science and to track developments in their chosen fields of science, including medicine, climate change, biotechnology, and ecosystems resilience. Thus, media are key gateways to belief and doubt in knowledge, including science. Indeed, media houses have noted this trend and indexed it by establishing pages in their print versions, airtime on their electronic platforms, publishing science articles online, and sharing relevant information on social media. In order to achieve the desired visibility, science institutions have reciprocated by adopting and adapting training for scientists in public relations and providing guidelines for their researchers interested in going public or facing the media. Yet, findings from interviews with four scientists and ten science journalists show that there is still friction between journalists and scientists in what should have been a mutual relationship in sharing information about ecosystems risk science, especially in the crop biotechnology debate, with the non-expert society in Uganda. The implication of media playing the dual roles of being watchdogs and supporting scientific developments is that the awareness created through the various platforms greases and sustains the debate on issues of GMOs, in a way similar to the debate on climate change and ecosystems resilience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altheide DL, Snow RP (1979) Media logic. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashwell DJ (2014) The challenges of science journalism: the perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Underst Sci 25(3):379–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu S, Leeuwis C (2012) Understanding the rapid spread of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh: exploring the building of support networks and media representation. Agric Syst 111:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Gaskell G (2002) In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell E (2016) Facebook is eating the world. Columbia Journal Rev:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglez P (2011) Inside, outside, and beyond media logic: journalistic creativity in climate reporting. Media Cult Soc 33(3):449–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglez P, Nassanga GL (2015) What is the difference between cross-national comparisons and semicomparative work? Example of Swedish-Ugandan climate change communication Research. J Dev Commun Stud 4(1):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley JC, Dudo AD, Yuan S, AbiGhannam N (2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Sci Commun 38(3):356–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatta A, Misra KD (2016) Biotechnology communication needs a rethink. Curr Sci 110(4):573–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US Prestige Press. Glob Environ Chang 14(2):125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brants K, Van Praag P (2017) Beyond media logic. In: Journalism studies. Routledge, pp 1–14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065200?needAccess=true

  • Broom GM, Dozier DM (1986) Advancement for public relations role models. Public Relat Rev 12(1):37–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi M (2004) Science in society: an introduction to social studies of science, 5th edn. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi M (2016) Science communication and science in society: a conceptual review in ten keywords. Ital J Sci Technol Stud 7(2):151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi M, Trench B (eds) (2014) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher T, Helmond A (2017) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess J, Poell T, Marwick A (eds) The Sage handbook of social media. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Caple H, Bednarek M (2013) Delving into the discourse: approaches to news values in journalism studies and beyond. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver RB (2014) Public communication from research institutes: is it science communication or public relations? J Sci Commun 13(3):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccoli S, Hixon W (2012) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Int Polit Sci Rev 33(3):301–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SY, Chu YR, Lin CY, Chiang TY (2016) Students’ knowledge of, and attitudes towards biotechnology revisited, 1995–2014: changes in agriculture biotechnology but not in medical biotechnology. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 44(5):475–491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen G (2011) Science and the media in South Africa: reflecting a “dirty mirror”. Communicatio 37(3):351–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies N (2009) Flat earth news. Vintage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer AS, Malila V, Beckett S, Wasserman H (2016) Binary opposites – can South African journalists be both watchdogs and developmental journalists? J Afr Media Stud 8(1):35–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudo A, Brossard D, Shanahan J, Scheufele DA, Morgan M, Signorielli N (2011) Science on television in the 21st century. Commun Res 38(6):754–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duesberg P, Rasnick D (1998) The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 104(2):85–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunwoody S (2008a) Science journalism. In: Bucchi M, Trench B (eds) Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Routledge, London, pp 15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunwoody S (2008b) Scientists, journalists and the meaning of uncertainty. In: Friedman S, Dunwoody S, Rogers C (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London, pp 59–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunwoody S, Kohl PA (2017) Using weight-of-experts messaging to communicate accurately about contested science. Sci Commun 39(3):338–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel E, Thorne B (2008) Public responses to uncertainty. In: Friedman S, Dunwoody S, Rogers C (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London, pp 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman R (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Eveland WP, Cooper KE (2013) An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Suppl. 3):14088–14095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough N (2008) The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Micheal Billig. Discourse Soc 6(2):185–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J (2010) The end of science journalism. In: Bauer MW, Bucchi M (eds) Journalism, science and society. Routledge, New York, pp 143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary J, Camicioli E, Bubela T (2016) DNA barcoding in the media: does coverage of cool science reflect its social context? Genome 59(9):738–750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giorno L, Drioli E (2000) Biocatalytic membrane reactors: applications and perspectives. Trends Biotechnol 18(8):339–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goujard C (2016) Five ways journalists can engage their audiences in storytelling: International Journalis’ Network. [Online]. Available: https://ijnet.org/en/blog/five-ways-journalists-can-engage-their-audiences-storytelling. Accessed 1 July 2016

  • Govoni P (2010) The rise and fall of science communication in late nineteenth century Italy. In: Bauer MW, Bucchi M (eds) Journalism, science and society. Routledge, New York, pp 21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D (1999) The media and public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of scientists and journalists. Sci Commun 20(4):373–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks DJ (2017) Scientific controversies as proxy politics. Issues Sci Technol 33(2):67–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard A (2012) Connecting with communities: how local government is using social media to engage with citizens. ANZSOG Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra and Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, Canberra. [Online]. Available: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/42107/3/Connecting-With-Communities-Social-Media.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2016

  • Jarreau PB (2016) Using Twitter to interact, but science communication to preach. SciLogs [Online]. Available: http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/using-twitter-to-interact-but-science-communication-to-preach/ [2017, 27 Feb]

  • Jasinsk AH (2010) Public relations as a tool of science communication with society. Revista CENIC. Cienc Biol 41:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji-kun H, Bo-wen P (2015) Consumers’ perceptions on GM food safety in urban China. J Integr Agric 14(11):2391–2400

    Google Scholar 

  • Joubert M (2017) Who and where are the visible scientists in South Africa? Available: https://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=5307

  • Lewenstein BV (2003) Models of public communication of science and technology. Public Underst Sci 96(3):288–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukanda IN (2018) From lab to fork? Press coverage and public (mis)perception of crop biotechnology in Uganda. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie R, Burhenne-Guilmin F, La Viña AGM, Werksman JD, Kinderlerer J, Kummer K, Tapper R (2003) An explanatory guide to the cartagena protocol on biosafety. Environ Bus 46:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeseele PA, Schuurman D (2008) Biotechnology and the popular press in northern Belgium: a case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Sci Commun 29(4):435–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Maille ME, Saint-Charles J, Lucotte M (2010) The gap between scientists and journalists: the case of mercury science in Quebec’s press. Public Underst Sci 19(1):70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malyska A, Bolla R, Twardowski T (2016) The role of public opinion in shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol 34(7):530–534

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JD (2010) Civic scientific literacy: the role of the media in the electronic era. In: Kennedy D, Overholser G (eds) Science and the media. American Academy of Arts and Sciences [Online], Cambridge, MA. Available: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1093 [2016, 29 Apr]

  • Miller S, Fahy D (2010) Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? Sci Commun 31(1):116–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien TLO, Pizmony-levy O (2015) Going public, gaining credibility: student perceptions of publicly engaged scholars. Sociol Perspect:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Okafor OE, Okafor PI (2017) Membership of cooperative society and adoption of agricultural technology in Awka North LGA of Anambra State, Nigeria. J Agric Biol Res 6:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters HP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(Suppl):14102–14109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen A (2001) Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine 52(8):1255–1268

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2010) Nonsense on stilts: how to tell science from bunk. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH (2008) Popular beliefs, media, and biotechnology. In: Friedman S, Dunwoody S, Rogers C (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Reul R, Paulussen S, Van der Steen L, Maeseele P (2018) Professional journalistic routines and the protest paradigm: the Big Potato Swap in traditional and alterative media. Journalism 19(7):899–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Rödder S (2012) The ambivalence of visible scientists. In: Rödder S, Franzen M, Weingart P (eds) The sciences’ media connection – public communication and its repercussions. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez L, Lee S (2016) What can be gleaned from news coverage to improve science reporting and enhance public literacy about agricultural biotechnology in Ghana? J Agric Food Inf 17(2–3):91–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrimo C (2016) The press crisis and its impact on Swedish arts journalism: autonomy loss, a shifting paradigm and a ‘journalistification’ of the profession. Journalism 18(6):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Secko DM, Amend E, Friday T (2013) Four models of science journalism. Journal Pract 7(1):62–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Smailhodzic E, Boonstra A, Langley D (2016) Towards new social media logic in healthcare and its interplay with clinical logic. In: Twenty-fourth European conference on information systems (ECIS), pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocking SH (2008) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In: Friedman S, Dunwoody S, Rogers C (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London, pp 23–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Suldovsky B (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Underst Sci 25(4):415–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susen BS (2011) Critical notes on Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Sociol Anal 5(1):37–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Takens J, Van Atteveldt W, Van Hoof A, Kleinnijenhuis J (2013) Media logic in election campaign coverage. Eur J Commun 28:277–293

    Google Scholar 

  • The New York Times (2016) The case of the media against the media. By the media. The New York Times (New York). 25 July. [Online]. Available: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/case-against-media.html. Accessed 28 July 2016

  • Townson C, Brewer PR, Ley BL (2016) Public responses to forensic DNA testing backlogs: media use and understandings of science. Bull Sci Technol Soc 35(5–6):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Toy J, Vandenbroucke JP, Journal E, Holden E, Franz J (2002) The Ingelfinger rule: Franz Ingelfinger at The New England Journal of Medicine 1967−77. Science 25(6):195–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran H (2013) Does exposure to online media matter? The knowledge gap and the mediating role of news use. Int J Commun 7:831–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench B (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne NRJ, Metcalfe J, Schiele B, Shi S (eds) Communicating science in social contexts: new models, new practices. Springer Netherlands, pp 119–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Unesco (2011) Media coverage of science and technology (October), pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventura V, Frisio DG, Ferrazzi G, Siletti E (2017) How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy. Public Underst Sci 26(5):547–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilella-Vila M, Costa-Font J (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. J Socioecono 37(5):2095–2106

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Roten FC (2011) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Sci Commun 33(1):52–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Journalism, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Ivan Nathanael Lukanda

Authors
  1. Ivan Nathanael Lukanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Geo-Informatics, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

    Yazidhi Bamutaze

  2. Department of Agricultural Production, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

    Samuel Kyamanywa

  3. Department of Environmental Science, Soil Science Building, Norwegian University of Life Science, Ås, Norway

    Bal Ram Singh

  4. Department of Agricultural Production, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

    Gorettie Nabanoga

  5. The Ohio State University , Columbus, OH, USA

    Rattan Lal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lukanda, I.N. (2019). Implications of Media-Scientists’ Relationship on Crop Biotechnology Debate in Uganda. In: Bamutaze, Y., Kyamanywa, S., Singh, B., Nabanoga, G., Lal, R. (eds) Agriculture and Ecosystem Resilience in Sub Saharan Africa. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12974-3_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation