Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda,but only moderate support

Abstract

In Switzerland, there have been intensive public debates about biotechnology because of the specific Swiss political system of direct democracy that led, in 1992 and 1998, to two national referenda on biotechnology regulation. As a result, the Swiss population is well informed but skeptical about this technology. These findings contrast with the deficit model of public understanding of science, which predicts a positive correlation between knowledge of, and support for, a specific technology. What role did the media play in the development of public opinion? This question is discussed because of a content analysis (time series) of national newspapers. In addition, representative surveys and focus groups yield insights into the public perception of biotechnology and the influence of mass communication for opinion formation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

U. Dahinden , H. Bonfadelli , and M. Leonarz , “Biotechnology: Dimensions of public concern in Europe,” in Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000 Conference: Transdisciplinarity—Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. Workbook II: Contributions to the Mutual Learning Sessions, ed. R. Scholz , R. Häberli , A. Bill , and M. Welti (Zürich: Haffmans, 2000), 47-51.

W. Linder , The Swiss Political Culture: Managing Conflict in Multicultural Society (New York: St. Martins Press, 1994).

R. Braun , “Lessons from the Swiss biotechnology referendum,” European Federation of Biotechnology—Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology—Briefing Paper 8 (http://www.kluyver.stm.tudelft.nl/efb/home.htm) (1998): 1-4.

Ibid.

Bonfadelli , “Switzerland: National profile.”

Artificial weeks are built by starting on any weekday and jumping to the following weekday in the following week. The result is a balanced sample regarding weekdays.

R. Entmann , “Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43 (1993): 51-58.

J. Durant , M. Bauer , and G. Gaskell , Biotechnology in the Public Sphere (London: Science Museum, 1998).

S. Dunwoody, “Massenmedien und Risikowahrnehmung,” in Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. Wahrnehmungen zur Risikowahrnehmung. Reihe: Gesellschaft und Unsicherheit; Bd. 2, ed. R. Bayrische (Knesebeck, München, 1993) 318-341.

10.

That means that the coding was deductive. The frames were defined inductively beforehand.

11.

Durant , Biotechnology in the public sphere.

12.

The Tages-Anzeiger has a readership of 14 percent, and is the most important newspaper for the greater area of Zürich.

13.

J. Dearing and E. Rogers , Communication Concepts 6: Agenda-Setting. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996).

14.

M. McCombs and, D. Shaw , “The Agenda-setting function of mass media,” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (1972): 176-187.

15.

P. Tichenor , G. Donohue , and C. Olien , “Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 334 (1970): 159-179.

16.

K. Viswanath and J. Finnegan , “The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later,” in Communication Yearbook 19, ed. B. Burleson and A. Kunkel (Thousand Oaks; London, New Delhi: Sage, 1996) 187-227.

17.

J. Cotton , “Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure,” in Selective Exposure to Communication, ed. D. Zillmann and J. Bryant (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1985), 11-33.

18.

E. Aronson , “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” American Journal of Psychology 110 (1997): 127-137.

19.

E. Perse , Media Effects and Society (Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2001).

20.

S. Iyengar and A. Simon , “News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion. A study of agenda setting, priming, and framing,” Communication Research 20 (1993): 365-383.

21.

D. Morgan and R. Krueger , The Focus Group Kit (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998).

22.

Braun , “Lessons from the Swiss biotechnology referendum.”