Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Synthetic Biology in the Press

Media Portrayal in Sweden and Italy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ambivalences of Creating Life

Part of the book series: Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment ((ETHICSSCI,volume 45))

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a deeper analysis of the role of public engagement in the assessment of synthetic biology see Seitz, this volume.

  2. 2.

    The lay public is here used to describe people, including scientists, who are no experts in the field. An attentive public is “the part of the general community already interested in (and reasonably well-informed about) science and scientific activities” (Burns et al. 2003).

  3. 3.

    Freedom—from 2009 to 2013—ranks Italy as a nation whose press is defined as “partially free” and Sweden as “free” (Freedom House 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). The same conclusions are supported by the yearly index from Reporters Without Borders: http://en.rsf.org/. Accessed 05 Jun 2015.

  4. 4.

    The 2013 Eurobarometer on the extent to which European citizens feel well informed about developments in science and technology ranked Sweden very high, with a score of 61 %, and Italy very low, with a score of 29 % (European Commission 2013).

  5. 5.

    TS Mediefakta: http://www.ts.se. Accessed 05 Jun 2015.

  6. 6.

    Diffusione Stampa: http://www.adsnotizie.it/. Accessed 05 Jun 2015.

References

  • Arkin A, Berry D, Church C et al (2009) What’s in a name? Nat Biotech 27(12):1071–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Árnason V (2012) Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Underst Sci 22(8):927–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6(7):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley P, Kyvik S (2011) Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Underst Sci 20(1):48–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattachary D, Calitz JP, Hunter A (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue. TNS-BMRB Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res 6(1):97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham JC (1987) How superstition won and science lost: popularizing science and health in the United States. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM (2003) Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Underst Sci 12(2):183–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N (1997) What makes mainstream media mainstream. Z Magazine. October

    Google Scholar 

  • Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009) Pictures of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey J, Newton K (2005) Predicting cross-national levels of trust: global pattern or nordic exceptionalism. Eur Sociol Rev 21(4):311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunwoody S (1987) Scientists, journalists, and the news. Chem Eng News 65(46):47–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) Eurobarometer Responsible Research and Innovation, Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 401. Brussels: European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (2009) Freedom of the Press 2009. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP%202009%20Full%20Release%20Booklet.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Freedom House (2010) Freedom of the Press 2010. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP2010–Final%20Booklet_5May.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Freedom House (2011) Freedom of the Press 2011. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP%202011%20Full%20Release%20Booklet.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Freedom House (2012) Freedom of the Press 2012. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Booklet%20for%20Website_0.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Freedom House (2013). Freedom of the Press 2013. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP%202013%20Booklet%20Final%20Complete%20-%20Web.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Gibson DG, Glass GI, Lartigue C et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987):52–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 92–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Network of Science Academies (2014) IAP Statement on Realising Global Potential in Synthetic Biology: Scientific Opportunities and Good Governance. IAP Report

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J (2010) Biotechnology and public engagement in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson MG (2008) The private sphere. An emotional territory and its agent. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2011) Synthetic biology: building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genet Soc 30(4):375–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar S (1991) Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Publisher, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • J. Craig Venter Institute (2010) First self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell. [Press release] Retrieved from: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell-constructed-by-j-craig-venter-institute-researcher/home/. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Jones RAL (2014) Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23(1):27–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle A (2013) Beyond patchwork precaution in the dual-use governance of synthetic biology. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1121–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):174–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruvand M (2012) Dr. Soundbite: the making of an expert source in science and medical stories. Sci Commun 34(5):566–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie A (2013) From validating to objecting: public appeals in synthetic biology. Sci Cult 22(4):476–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs ME, Shaw DL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin Q 36(2):176–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2000) Qualitative content analysis. FQS 1(2) Art. 20. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Morgan D (2002) A content analysis of media coverage of health care and the uninsured 2002. Frame Works Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin D (2001) Beyond risk: reporting about genetics in the Post-Asilomar Press. Perspect Biol Med 44(2):199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson B (2014) Cultural divide. Nature 509(7499):152–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):567–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. IJPP 8(2):36–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham P, Hall S, Burton G (2012) Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS ONE 7(4):e34368. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2013) Communication: mind the metaphor. Nature 500(7464):523–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E, Lovell A, Rouge E (2012) Trends in American and European Press coverage of synthetic biology. Synbio 4 (Synthetic Biology Project). Wilson Center

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):191–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic biology: scope, applications and implications. The Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety. Syst Synth Biol 2(1–2):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (SBRCG) (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK. Research Councils UK. Technology Strategy Board, Swindon

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg PM, Semetko HA, Vreese CHD (1999) The effects of news frames on readers’ thoughts and recall. Commun Res 26(5):550–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venter CJ (2010) Craig venter: watch me unveil “synthetic life”. [Video file] Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life#t-38502. Accessed 05 Jun 2015

  • Wareham C, Nardini C (2013) Policy on synthetic biology: deliberation, probability, and the precautionary paradox. Bioethics 29(2):118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Mirko Ancillotti & Stefan Eriksson

Authors
  1. Mirko Ancillotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Eriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirko Ancillotti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Kristin Hagen

  2. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Margret Engelhard

  3. Center for Literary and Cultural Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Georg Toepfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ancillotti, M., Eriksson, S. (2016). Synthetic Biology in the Press. In: Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21087-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21088-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation