Cartoons on bacterial balloons: scientists’ opinion on the popularization of synthetic biology

Abstract

How do scientists perceive the media coverage of synthetic biology (SB)? In this paper, we approach this question by studying a set of cartoons devoted to SB. Based on a categorization of the cartoons into five large thematic groups an international survey was carried out to assess the opinion of SB research groups on science communication with regard to the public image of their discipline. The 101 responses obtained indicate that in general, their perception of the communication is not negative, although many respondents raised concerns on the media's inclination to sensationalism and over-simplification. However, the results also suggest that (in the light of the unfortunate experiences with GMO communication) scientists should think twice before proposing metaphorical interpretations of their research.

Creating life and the media: translations and echoes

“…Interestingly, this and other subsequent reports on artificially built genomes or chromosomes (Baker 2011 ; Richardson et al 2017 ; Mercy et al 2017 ) coincided in time with a peak of not only written news, but also images and cartoons dealing with synthetic biology. Domínguez et al ( 2014 ) studied a set of cartoons on synthetic biology published in Europe in three languages and grouped them in five main blocks: mystic/religious (playing God); monstrous (Frankenstein-like); engineering (biomachine metaphors); descriptive (no clear positioning); and comical. Although most of the cartoons were classified as not inherently negative, the high rate of sensationalist ones –particularly those of the monstrous group– supported the authors’ advice that synthetic biologists should choose their metaphors more carefully (Domínguez et al 2014 ).…”

“…Domínguez et al ( 2014 ) studied a set of cartoons on synthetic biology published in Europe in three languages and grouped them in five main blocks: mystic/religious (playing God); monstrous (Frankenstein-like); engineering (biomachine metaphors); descriptive (no clear positioning); and comical. Although most of the cartoons were classified as not inherently negative, the high rate of sensationalist ones –particularly those of the monstrous group– supported the authors’ advice that synthetic biologists should choose their metaphors more carefully (Domínguez et al 2014 ). Interestingly, one of the co-founders of the discipline, Drew Endy, coauthored with Isadora Deese a cartoon, drawn by Chuck Wadey and published in Nature five years before Venter’s high-profile breakthrough.…”

The metaphorical species: Evolution, adaptation and speciation of metaphors

“…Cartoons as an opinion genre are extremely useful for my purpose because they combine image and text (often aphoristic and judgemental) and create very efficient multimodal communicative content (Forceville, 2006;Forceville and Urios-Aparisi, 2009;Tsakona, 2009). They are also an excellent barometer of public opinion (Domínguez, 2014;Domínguez et al, 2014a) that enables the researchers to quickly see a change in attitude about certain topics, possibly with greater clarity than other opinion genres (Domínguez and Mateu, 2013;2014). In addition, due to their ironic nature -often sarcastic and scathing, cartoons take licence that would be far more reprehensible in other genres (Kuipers, 2011;Laegaard, 2007), but which tend to better reflect the true pulse of the street (Edwards and Ware, 2005;Schilperoord and Maes, 2009;Wekesa, 2012).…”