CRISPR Images: Media Use and Public Opinion About Gene Editing

Abstract

As gene editing technologies such as CRISPR have become increasingly prominent, so have media portrayals of them. With this in mind, the present study builds on theoretical accounts of framing effects, cultivation effects, and genre-specific viewing effects to examine how different forms of media use predict attitudes toward applications of gene editing. Specifically, the study tests how news use, overall television viewing, and science fiction viewing are related to such attitudes. The analyses draw on original data from two surveys of the U.S. public, one conducted in 2020 and the other in 2021. The results from both surveys indicate that news use and overall television viewing predict support for uses of gene editing, whereas science fiction viewing is not significantly related to opinion. The findings suggest that media frames and images may carry implications for the trajectory of public opinion about gene editing technologies and, ultimately, the social context for their development and adoption.

Keywords

gene editing public opinion cultivation news media framing science fiction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

J. T.

Howell

E. L.

Xenos

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

(2021). Learning without seeking? Incidental exposure to science news on social media & knowledge of gene editing. Journal of Science Communication, 20(4), A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20040201.

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2018, November 20). Science Media monitor - report 2. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. www.annenber gpublicpolicycenter.org/feature/science-media-monitor-report-2/ .

Besley

J. C.

Shanahan

(2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275443

Brewer

P. R.

Ley

B. L.

(2021). Science in the media: popular images and public perceptions. Routledge.

Brossard

Dudo

(2012). Cultivation of attitudes toward science. In Morgan

Shanahan

Signorielli

(Eds.), Living with television now: advances in cultivation theory & research (pp. 120–146). Peter Lang.

Brossard

Nisbet

M. C

. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003.

Brossard

Shanahan

(2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication and Society, 6(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825 MCS0603_4.

Chapin

S. L.

Chapin

L. D.

(1994). Biotech or biowreck? The implications of Jurassic Park and genetic engineering. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 14(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/027046769401400103.

Cobb

M. D.

(2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281473.

10.

Delhove

Osenk

Prichard

Donnelley

(2020). Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: A systematic review. Human Gene Therapy, 31(1–2), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2019.197.

11.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x

12.

Dudo

Brossard

Shanahan

Scheufele

D. A.

Morgan

Signorielli

(2011). Science on television in the 21st century: recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988.

13.

Entman

R.M

. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

14.

Funk

Hefferon

(2018). Public views of gene editing for babies depend on how it would be used. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/07/26/public-views- of-gene-editing-for-babies-depend-on-how-it-would-be-used/ .

15.

Funk

Tyson

Kennedy

Johnson

(2020). Biotechnology research viewed with caution globally, but most support gene editing for babies to treat disease. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/10/biotechnology-research-viewed-with-caution-globally-but-most-support-gene-editing-for-babies-to-treat-disease/ .

16.

Gamson

(1992). Talking politics. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Gamson

W. A.

Modigliani

(1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213.

18.

Gaskell

Bard

Allansdottir

Da Cunha

R. V.

Eduard

Hampel

Zwart

(2017). Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology, 35(11), 1021–1023. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3958.

19.

Gerbner

(1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 109–115. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43309074 .

20.

Gerbner

Gross

(1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x.

21.

Gordon

(2009). Learning from fiction: Applications in emerging technologies. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(6), 470–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467609349054.

22.

Green

J. L

. (2019). Why scream about sound in space? The functions of audience discourse about unrealistic science in narrative fiction. Public Understanding of Science, 28(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518808729.

23.

Hamilton

S. N

. (2003). Traces of the future: biotechnology, science fiction, and the media. Science Fiction Studies, 30(2), 267–282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4241173 .

24.

Haynes

R. D.

(2016). Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251 4535689.

25.

Hirsch

P. M.

(1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of gerbner, Et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7(4), 403–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028000700401.

26.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A

. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017.

27.

Howell

E. L.

Wirz

C. D.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A

. (2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741.

28.

Hughes

(1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of television watching. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/268597.

29.

Kohl

P. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2019). Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation. Conservation Biology, 33(6), 1286–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13310.

30.

Lecheler

de Vreese

C. H.

(2018). News framing effects. Routledge.

31.

Lee

B. Y.

(2021, March 17). COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not “gene therapy” as some are claiming. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines- are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh = 4a928a8d3d20.

32.

Liu

Priest

(2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508097625.

33.

Marcon

Master

Ravitsky

Caulfield

. (2019). CRISPR In the north American popular press. Genetics in Medicine, 21(10), 2184–2189. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436- 019-0482-5.

34.

Morgan

Shanahan

. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151003735018.

35.

Morgan

Shanahan

Signorielli

(2015). Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1072725.

36.

National Human Genome Research Institute (2019). What is genome editing? Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing.

37.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In Kahlor

Stout

(Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40–67). Routledge.

38.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2005). The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh058.

39.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2018, April 18). The gene-editing conversation. American Scientist. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-gene-editing-conversation.

40.

Nisbet

M. C.

Dudo

(2013). Entertainment media portrayals and their effects on the public understanding of science. In Hollywood chemistry: when science met entertainment (pp. 241–249). American Chemical Society.

41.

Nisbet

M. C.

Goidel

R. K.

(2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic—survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506065558.

42.

Nisbet

M. C.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401.

43.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shanahan

Moy

Brossard

Lewenstein

B. V

. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196.

44.

Perkowitz

(2007). Hollywood science: movies, science, and the end of the world. Columbia University Press.

45.

Potter

J. W

. (1993). Cultivation theory and research. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 564–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00313.x.

46.

Priest

S. H.

Ten Eyck

(2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02712649.

47.

Scheufele

. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x.

48.

Simis

M. J.

Yeo

S. K.

Rose

K. M.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Pope

B. K.

(2015). New media audiences’ perceptions of male and female scientists in two sci-fi movies. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 35(3-4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616636195.

49.

Sladek

Joly

(2021). Assessing public opinions on the likelihood and permissibility of gene editing through construal level theory. New Genetics and Society, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2020.1868985.

50.

Weingart

Muhl

Pansegrau

. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123006.