Public knowledge-making and the media: Genes, genetics, cloning and Mass Observation

Abstract

Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Corresponding IntroductionPublic knowledge about genetics and genomics is often framed as shallow, reactionary or just uninformed by stakeholder advocates for particular innovations in application or policy. Media representations are regularly characterized by scientists as exaggeration or fear-mongering and the general public's scientific knowledge is often characterized as slightly ridiculous. Against this general context, work on public engagement is often pursued to contest the assertion that there has been an historical distrust of science, and that there is currently an 'anti-science brigade', despite decades of work by social scientists demonstrating the contextual character of the 'public understanding of science ' (Wynne 1992, Irwin andMichael 2003). The figure of the 'antiscience brigade' was frequently mobilised by the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during his time in office (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) through repeated references to 'irrational' public debate against which science needed to be defended (Haran et al 2008).The research findings presented here, however, are in tune with what Irwin and Michael call the 'ethnographic turn' in public understanding of science (2003: 28) which observes that: 'people do not simply possess knowledge about scientific "facts" and scientific procedures and processes, they can also reflect upon the epistemological status of that knowledge' (Michael 1996: 107). What is distinctive about the research is that it invited respondents to characterise and reflect upon the sources of their knowledge about genetics and genomics -areas of science which have been the subject of an exceptional degree of public discourse in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries -in a relatively open-ended way, without directing them to particular examples of genetic knowledge dissemination.Corresponding Author Dr K O'Riordan k.oriordan@sussex.ac.uk, MFM University of Sussex, UK Recent research into public engagement with genetics can be characterized in terms of three approaches: attitudes studies (Sturgis et al 2005, Condit, 2010; media content analysis (Kitzinger 2008, Nerlich et al 2002; and patient or focus group work (Kerr and CunninghamBurley 2...

Mendelian or Multifactorial? Current Undergraduate Genetics Assessments Focus on Genes and Rarely Include the Environment

“…For example, they can purchase DNA sequencing services to learn about ancestry, discover relatives, and learn about health risks (7)(8)(9). Genetics has also become a more prominent topic in the world news and social media, with these resources often acting as the primary source for public understanding of genetics (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent example of this, with these sources providing information about the intersection of genetics and personal susceptibility to contracting the virus (16,17).…”

Children and young people's understanding of inherited conditions and their attitudes towards genetic testing: A systematic review

“…Parents may find it difficult to communicate openly with their children about the potential impact of a genetic condition, due in part to feelings of guilt . In children and young peoples' broader social context, information about disease, genetics and risk is increasingly present in the media and can influence personal knowledge and misinformation . Several authors have suggested an important role for the school curriculum in ensuring that children receive accurate and developmentally appropriate information about genetics and the associated ethical and legal issues .…”

Changing Social Representations and Agenda Interactions of Gene Editing After Crises: A Network Agenda-Setting Study on Chinese Social Media

“…Similarly, the media’s attribute networks of gene editing have always been positively correlated to the government’s attribute networks (see Table 4, Models 1 and 4), regardless of whether the GHB scandal happened. These results render empirical support for the important role of scientists in providing laypeople with the resources they need to form rational perceptions of controversial S&T (Haran & O’Riordan, 2018). Further, these results reveal a feature of online science communication within the Chinese context: Chinese media not only mediates between science and the public (Leydesdorff & Hellsten, 2005), it also observes the government’s agenda on social media closely when representing controversial scientific issues such as gene editing.…”