Promises and perils of gene drives Brossard, Dominique; Belluck, Pam; Gould, Fred ...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS,
04/2019, Letnik:
116, Številka:
16
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication.” The panel ...brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.
Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and ...lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.
Using the Zika outbreak as a context of inquiry, this study examines how assigning blame on social media relates to the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Past research has discussed the ...relationship between the SARF and traditional mass media, but the role of social media platforms in amplification or attenuation of risk perceptions remains understudied. Moreover, the communication and perceptions of Zika‐related risk are not limited to discussions in English. To capture conversations in languages spoken by affected countries, this study combines data in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. To better understand the assignment of blame and perceptions of risk in new media environments, we looked at three different facets of conversations surrounding Zika on Facebook and Twitter: the prominence of blame in each language, how specific groups were discussed throughout the Zika outbreak, and the sentiment expressed about genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes. We combined machine learning with human coding to analyze public discourse in all three languages. We found differences between languages and platforms in the amount of blame assigned to different groups. We also found more negative sentiments expressed about GE mosquitoes on Facebook than on Twitter. These meaningful differences only emerge from analyses across the three different languages and platforms, pointing to the importance of multilingual approaches for risk communication research. Specific recommendations for outbreak and risk communication practitioners are also discussed.
The objective of this study is to better understand the effects of media attention on Americans' perceptions of risk by analyzing the different media sources and outlets, or "repertoires," reported ...as used during the small 2016-2017 Zika outbreak in the U.S. We analyzed survey data from a four-wave longitudinal panel study over nine months - July 19, 2016 through April 24, 2017 (n = 743) - using an online panel of American adults. Media attention related to ratings of personal risk, U.S. risk, and need for action. Personal risk was enhanced more by reported attention to international coverage, reduced by certain reported website attention, but enhanced by reported attention to public health agency websites. U.S. risk was enhanced by reported attention to both domestic and international coverages, reduced by television. Judged need for U.S. action was enhanced more by exposure to domestic coverage, reduced by reported attention to television and local newspapers, but enhanced by reported exposure to BBC and CNN. Our results demonstrate how the use of different media outlets and sources are related to different perceptions of risk and need for action during 2016-2017 Zika outbreak.
Effective public engagement with complex technologies requires a nuanced understanding of how different audiences make sense of and communicate disruptive technologies with immense social ...implications. Using latent class analysis (LCA) on nationally-representative survey data (N = 2,700), we examine public attitudes on different aspects of AI, and segment the U.S. population based on their AI-related risk and benefit perceptions. Our analysis reveals five segments: the negative, perceiving risks outweighing benefits; the ambivalent, seeing high risks and benefits; the tepid, perceiving slightly more benefits than risks; the ambiguous, perceiving moderate risks and benefits; and the indifferent, perceiving low risks and benefits. For societal debates surrounding a deeply disruptive issue like AI, our findings suggest potential opportunities for engagement by soliciting input from individuals in segments with varying levels of support for AI, as well as a way to widen representation of voices and ensure responsible innovation of AI.
•We classify Americans' AI perceptions into five segments: negative, ambivalent, tepid, ambiguous, and indifferent classes.•Views of AI vary both by the level of news attention and the content audiences attend to.•The negative and the ambivalent classes largely differ in support for AI, but agree that their voices should be heard.•The indifferent and the ambiguous classes include more minorities who may be disproportionately affected by AI.•Now is a great time to engage with the publics on issues related to AI because it is not overtly politicized.
We examined initial newspaper coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak (January–May 2020) in the United States and China, countries with contrasting media systems and pandemic experiences. We join the ...context-rich media systems literature and the longitudinal nature of the issue-attention literature to expand each by providing more system-level context for explaining how media cover an issue over time. U.S. coverage peaked later and stayed consistently high, while Chinese coverage was more variable. The most prominent topics in Chinese coverage were related to domestic outbreak response, while U.S. coverage focused on politics, highlighting how issue-attention cycles differ across countries.
Gene editing is an inherently wicked problem with no single right answer and no group uniquely positioned to decide this answer. We discuss the intricacies of the debates surrounding both plant and ...human applications of gene editing. Specifically, we demonstrate how one technology has developed into two separate context-driven debates within the scientific community with seemingly contradictory perspectives of ideal outcomes. Resolving these debates will require a culture of civic science that focuses on early and ongoing engagement with different publics that is not just done on science's terms. We provide recommendations for how both bench and social scientists should approach these issues moving forward. We also give a brief review of the research and commentaries included in this special issue of Environmental Communication on gene editing.
We used the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak to examine the relationships between risk perceptions and media coverage (volume and content). We analyzed how public opinion from longitudinal U.S. panel data ...related to the number of published news articles and the proportion that discussed risks. News following, volume and risk content were positively related to U.S. and global risk perceptions. Perceptions of U.S. risk declined at different rates, depending upon news attention and potential exposure to risk content. Both media volume and content were significant factors, suggesting scholars should focus more on combined effects of news media volu
me and content.
Deference to scientific authority theoretically captures the belief that scientists and not publics should make decisions on science in society. Few studies examine deference, however, and none test ...this central theoretical claim. The result is deference is often conflated with concepts such as trust in scientists and belief in the authority of science. This study examines two claims key to conceptualizing deference: that deference (1) predicts anti-democratic views of decision-making and (2) relates to but is distinct from beliefs of science as authoritative knowledge. Analyzing US nationally representative data, we find deference to scientific authority does predict anti-democratic views, and this is its distinct conceptual value: trust in scientists and belief in science as authoritative knowledge strongly relate to deference, but both predict pro-democratic views, unlike deference. We discuss how these findings highlight deference as vital for understanding perceptions of science and societal decision-making and how we can better develop the concept.
Scientific experts can play an important role in decision-making surrounding policy for technical and value-laden issues, often in contexts that directly affect lay publics. Yet little is known about ...what characterizes scientific experts who want lay public involvement in decision-making. In this study, we examine how synthetic biology experts’ perceptions of risks, benefits, and ambivalence for synthetic biology relate to views of lay publics, deference to scientific authority, and regulations. We analyzed survey data of researchers in the United States, who published academic articles relating to synthetic biology from 2000 to 2015. Scientific experts who see less risk and are more deferent to scientific authority appear to favor a more closed system in which regulations are sufficient, citizens should not be involved, and scientists know best. Conversely, scientific experts who see more potential for risk and see the public as bringing a valuable perspective appear to favor a more open, inclusive system.
PDF
