This article explores how science is mobilized as a collective identity, normative ideal, and instrumental tactic in contentious online global advocacy campaigns on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It incorporates qualitative analysis of over 2300 public Twitter postings by core zoonosis and lab origin proponents who identify as scientists. These online exchanges provide a real-time window into how the collective identity of scientist is constructed and mobilized as a master frame. Similarly, this paper explores ways in which the boundaries of science, conspiracy, and politics are set and contested in a context of complex and fast-moving global events.
BauerA.BognerA. (2020). Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907255
4.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
5.
BlissC. (2015). Science and struggle: Emerging forms of race and activism in the genomic era. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661, 86–108.
6.
BlueG.DavidsonD. (2021) Co-producing uncertainty in public science: The case of genomic selection in forestry. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4) 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520982540
7.
BonneuilC.FoyerJ.WynneB. (2014). Genetic fallout in bio-cultural landscapes: Molecular imperialism and the cultural politics of (not) seeing transgenes in Mexico. Social Studies of Science, 44(6), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714548258
BrownM. B. (2015). Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 3–30.
10.
CalisherC.CarrollD.ColwellR.CorleyR. B.DaszakP.DrostenC.EnjuanesL.FarrarJ.FieldH.GoldingJ.GorbalenyaA.HaagmansB.HughesJ. M.KareshW. B.KeuschG. T.LamS. K.LubrothJ.MackenzieJ. S.MadoffL.… TurnerM. (2020). Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. Lancet, 395(10226), e42–e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9
11.
CohoonJ.HowisonJ. (2021). Norms and open systems in open science. Information & Culture, 56, 115–137.
ChanA.RidleyM. (2022). Viral: The search for the origin of Covid-19. HarperCollins Publishers.
14.
Crits-ChristophA.GangavarapuK.PekarJ.MoshiriN.SinghR.LevyJ. I.GoldsteinS. A.SuchardM. A.PopescuS.RobertsonD. L.LemeyP.WertheimJ. O.GarryR. F.RasmussenA. L.AndersenK. G.HolmesE. C.RambautA.WorobeyM.DébarreF. (2023). Genetic evidence of susceptible wildlife in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market, Wuhan: Analysis and interpretation of data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control, March 20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7754299
15.
DawsonA. (2018). Biocapitalism and de-extinction. In GrusinR. (Ed.), After extinction (pp. 173–200). University of Minnesota Press.
16.
DodgeJ. (2017). Crowded advocacy: Framing dynamic in the fracking controversy in New York. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(3), 888–915.
17.
FominayaC. F. (2015). Autonomous social movements and the paradox of anti-identitarian collective identity. In McGarryA.JasperJ. M. (Eds.), The identity dilemma: Social movements and collective identity (pp. 65–84). Temple University Press.
18.
FrickelS.GibbonS.HowardJ.KempnerJ.OttingerG.HessD. J. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 5(4), 444–473.
19.
FrickelS.MooreK. (2006). The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. University of Wisconsin Press.
20.
FrutosR.JavelleE.BarberotC.GavotteL.Tissot-DupontH.DevauxC. A. (2022). Origin of COVID-19: Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory and the laboratory accident narrative. Environmental Research, 204, Article 112141.
21.
GamsonW. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. In JohnstonH.KlandermansB. (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 85–106). University of Minnesota Press.
22.
GeisslerP. W. (2013). Public secrets in public health: Knowing not to know while making scientific knowledge. American Ethnologist, 40(1), 13–34.
23.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
24.
GierynT. F.FigertA. E. (1986). Scientists protect their cognitive authority: The Status degradation ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt. In BöhmeG.StehrN. (Eds.), The knowledge society: The growing impact of scientific knowledge on social relations (pp. 67–86). D. Reidel.
25.
GiustaM. D.JaworskaS.GreethamD. V. (2021). Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science, 30(1), 75–90.
26.
HallonstenO. (2022). On the essential role of organized skepticism in science’s “internal and lawful autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit). Journal of Classical Sociology, 22(3), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X211000247
27.
HolmesE. C.GoldsteinS. A.RasmussenA. L.RobertsonD. LCrits-ChristophAWertheimJ. O.AnthonyS. J.BarclayW. S.BoniM. F.DohertyP. C.FarrarJ.GeogheganJ. L.JiangX.LeibowitzJ. L.NeilS. J. D.SkernTWeissS. R.WorobeyM.AndersenK. G.… RambautA. (2021). The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review. Cell, 184(19), 4848–4856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017
HosseiniM.Senabre HidalgoE.HorbachS. P. J. M.GüttingerS.PendersB. (2024). Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance, 31(5), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625
30.
HurlbutJ. B. (2015). Reimagining responsibility in synthetic biology. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 113–116.
31.
JamiesonK. H. (2021). How conspiracists exploited COVID-19 science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1464–1465.
32.
JasanoffS. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.
33.
JasanoffS.HurlbutB.SahaK. (2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 25–32.
34.
JeonJ. (2019). Invisibilizing politics: Accepting and legitimating ignorance in environmental sciences. Social Studies of Science, 49(6), 839–862.
35.
KahnL. H. (2021, November19). Creating dangerous viruses in the lab is a bad way to guard against future pandemics. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
36.
KlotzL. C.SylvesterE. J. (2014). The consequences of a lab escape of a potential pandemic pathogen. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 116.
37.
Koblentz-StenzlerL.PackA. (2021). Infected by hate: Far-right attempts to leverage anti-vaccine sentiment. International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30926
38.
LachenalG. (2015). Lessons in medical nihilism. Virus hunters, neoliberalism and the AIDS crisis in Cameroon. In GeisslerW. (Ed.), Para-states and medical science: Making African global health (pp. 103–141). Duke University Press.
39.
LakoffA. (2017). A fragile assemblage: Mutant bird flu and the limits of risk assessment. Social Studies of Science, 47(3), 376–397.
40.
LandryD.SpivakG. C. (1996). The Spivak reader: Selected works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Routledge.
41.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Ed. N. W. Storer. University of Chicago Press.
42.
MitroffI. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.
43.
Morello-FroschR.BrownP.ZavestoskiS. (2012). Introduction: Environmental justice and contested illnesses. In BrownP.Morello-FroschR.ZavetoskiS., & The Contested Illnesses Research Group (Eds.), Contested illnesses: Citizens, science, and health social movements (pp. 3–14). University of California Press.
MusunuriS.SandbrinkJ. B.MonradJ. T.PalmerM. J.KoblentzG. D. (2021). Rapid proliferation of pandemic research: Implications for dual-use risks. Perspectives, 12(5), Article e01864-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01864-21
46.
NowlinM. C. (2021). Political beliefs, views about technocracy, and energy and climate policy preferences. Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 331–348.
47.
PekarJ.MageeA.ParkerE.MoshiriN.WertheimJ. O. (2022). The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. Science, 377(6609), 960–966. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337
48.
PollettaF.JasperJ. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.
49.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to climate change (reprint ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
50.
RitsonS. (2016). ‘Crackpots’ and ‘active researchers’: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere. Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 607–628.
51.
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.
52.
SmallmanM. (2020). ‘Nothing to do with the science’: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government. Social Studies of Science, 50(4), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719879768
53.
SnowD. A.BenfordR. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
54.
SuldovskyB.LandrumA.StroudN. J. (2019). Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519856768
van StekelenburgJ.RoggebandC. (2013). Introduction: The future of social movement research. In van StekelenburgJ.RoggebandC.KlandermansB. (Eds.), The future of social movement research: Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes (pp. xi–xxii). University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt46npj4
57.
WalterS.LörcherI.BrüggemannM. (2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519844131
58.
WorobeyM.LevyJ. I.Malpica SerranoL.Crits-ChristophA.PekarJ. E.GoldsteinS. A.RasmussenA. L.KraemerM. U. G.NewmanC.KoopmansM. P. G.SuchardM. A.WertheimJ. O.LemeyP.RobertsonD. L.GarryR. F.HolmesE. C.RambautA.AndersenK. G. (2022). The Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Science, 377(6609), 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8715
59.
ZschauT.AdamsA. E.ShriverT. E. (2012). Reframing the biotechnology debate: The deconstructive efforts of the Council for Responsible Genetics. Symbolic Interaction, 35(2), 221–239.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
