This paper studies the changing media representations and public perceptions of biotechnology through a case study of the generation of transgenic cattle in Finland. The particular focus is on rhetoric of the future: the narrative shaping of future promises, the politics of naming, visual images, and the role of the news media in producing and circulating images of new genetics. It is suggested that scientists can play a dominant role in popularizing scientific and technological innovations by using positive metaphors and visual imagery of genetics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, A. (2002) “In Search of the Holy Grail: Media Discourse and the New Human Genetics,”New Genetics and Society21: 327–337 .
2.
Bauer, M. (1998) “The Medicalization of Science News—From the ‘Rocket-scalpel’ to the ‘Gene-meteorite’ Complex,”Social Science Information37: 731–751 .
3.
Beck, U. (1992) The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE .
4.
Beck, U. (2000) “Risk Society Revisited,” in B. Adam , U. Beck and Joost van Loon (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond, pp. 211–229. London: SAGE .
5.
Bono, J. (1990) “Science, Discourse and Literature,” in S. Peterfreund (ed.) Literature and Science, pp. 59–89. Boston: Northeastern University Press .
6.
Brown, N. (1999) “Xenotransplantation: Normalizing Disgust,”Science as Culture8: 327–355 .
7.
Brown, N. (2000) “Organising/Disorganising the Breakthrough Motif: Dolly the Cloned Ewe Meets Astrid the Hybrid Pig,” in N. Brown , B. Rappert and A. Webster (eds) Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-science, pp. 87–108. Aldershot: Ashgate .
8.
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects,”Technology Analysis & Strategic Management15: 3–18 .
9.
Brown, N. , Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (2000) (eds) Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate .
10.
Conrad, P. (1999) “Use of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the Reporting of Genetics in the News,”Public Understanding of Science8: 285–302 .
11.
Dunwoody, S. and Griffin, R. (1993) “Journalistic Strategies for Reporting Long-term Environmental Issues,” in A. Hansen (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, pp. 22–50Leicester: Leicester University Press .
12.
Einsiedel, E. (1992) “Framing Science and Technology in the Canadian Press,”Public Understanding of Science1: 89–101 .
13.
Ekecrantz, J. (2001) “Postmodern Times? A Comparative Study of Temporal Constructions,” paper presented at the 15th Nordic Conference on Media and Communication Research, August. Reykjavik, Iceland.
14.
Ellis, J. (2000) Seeing Things. Television in the Age of Uncertainty. London & New York: I.B. Tauris .
15.
Eurobarometer (1997) The Europeans and Modern Biotechnology. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate General XII .
16.
Eurobarometer (2000) The Europeans and Biotechnology. INRA–ECOSA. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2000/pr2704en.html
17.
Fortun, M. (2001) “Mediated Speculation in the Genomics Futures Markets,”New Genetics & Society20: 139–156 .
18.
Franklin, S. (2000) “Life Itself. Global Nature and the Genetic Imagery,” in S. Franklin , C. Lury and J. Stacey (eds) Global Nature, Global Culture, pp. 188–227. London: SAGE .
19.
Gamson, W.A. and Lasch, K. (1983) “The Political Culture of Social Welfare Policy,” in S.E. Spiro (ed.) Evaluating the Welfare State, pp. 397–415. New York & London: Academic Press .
20.
Gamson, W.A. , Croteau, D. , Hoynes, W. and Sasson, T. (1992) “Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality,”Annual Review of Sociology18: 373–393 .
21.
Gaskell, G. , Bauer, M. and Durant, J. (1998) “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology,” in J. Durant , M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere. A European Sourcebook, pp. 189–214London: Science Museum .
22.
Giddens, A. (1999) “Runaway World: The Reith Lecture Revisited,”British Broadcasting Corporation. URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/lectures.htm
23.
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley: University of California Press .
24.
Hamilton, S.N. (2003) “Traces of the Future: Biotechnology, Science Fiction, and the Media,”Science Fiction Studies30: 267–282 .
25.
Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1992) “Science Coverage in the British Mass Media,”Communications17: 365–377 .
Hellsten, I. (2002) The Politics of Metaphor. Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the Media. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 876, Tampere University Press . URL: http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5380-8.pdf
28.
Hendolin, M. (1998) Generation of Transgenic Cattle: the Fate of Foreign DNA in Microinjected Bovine In Vitro Produced Embryos. Kuopio: University of Kuopio .
29.
Hornig Priest, S. (2001) “Cloning: A Study of News Production,”Public Understanding of Science10: 59–69 .
30.
Hoskins, A. (2001) “Mediating Time. The Temporal Mix of Television,”Time & Society10: 213–233 .
31.
Huxford, J. (2000) “Framing the Future: Science Fiction Frames and the Press Coverage of Cloning,”Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies14: 187–199 .
32.
Ideland, M. (2002) Dagens gennyheter. Hur massmedier berättar om genetic och genteknik (How the Press Covers Genetics and Gene Technology). Lund: Nordic Academic Press .
33.
Kauhanen, E. (1997) The River of Ink. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Communication .
34.
Keller, E.F. (2000) The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
35.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, Th. (1996) Reading Images. London & New York: Routledge .
36.
Kuusi, H. (2001) “Finland—a European Leader in Biotechnology,”Kemia-Kemi28(6): 32–37 .
37.
Law, J. and Whittaker, J. (1988) “On the Art of Representation: Notes on the Politics of Visualisation,” in G. Fyfe and J. Law (eds) Picturing Power, Sociological Review Monograph 35, pp. 160–183. London & New York: Routledge .
38.
Levidow, L. (2000) “Pollution Metaphors in the UK Biotechnology Controversy,”Science as Culture9: 325–351 .
39.
Liakopoulos, M. (2002) “Pandora’s Box or Panacea? Using Metaphors to Create the Public Representations of Biotechnology,”Public Understanding of Science11: 5–32 .
40.
Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (1995) “Metaphors—Messengers of Meaning,”Science Communication17: 9–31 .
41.
Michael, M. (2000) “Futures of the Present: From Performativity to Prehension”, in N. Brown , B. Rappert and A. Webster (eds) Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-science, pp. 21–42. Aldershot: Ashgate .
42.
Michael, M. (2001) “Technoscientific Bespoking: Animals, Publics and the New Genetics,”New Genetics and Society20: 205–224 .
43.
Miettinen, R. and Väliverronen, E. (1999) “In Science and Technology We Trust: on the Public Understanding of Science in Finland,” in R. Miettinen (ed.) Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science, pp. 11–22. Helsinki: The Academy of Finland .
44.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S. (1995) The DNA Mystique. The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W.H. Freeman .
45.
Neresini, F. (2000) “And Man Descended from the Sheep. The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press,”Public Understanding of Science9: 359–382 .
46.
Petersen, A. (2001) “Biofantasies: Genetics and Medicine in the Print News Media,”Social Science & Medicine52: 1255–1268 .
47.
Rusanen, T. (2002) “Challenging the Risk Society: The Case of Finland,”Science Communication24: 198–208 .
48.
Rusanen, T. , von Wright, A. and Rusanen, M. (2001) “Biotechnology in Finland,” in G. Gaskell and M. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: the Years of Controversy, pp. 171–180. London: Science Museum .
49.
Schienstock, G. and Tulkki, P. (2001) “The Fourth Pillar. An Assessment of the Situation of the Finnish Biotechnology,”Small Business Economics17: 105–122 .
50.
Seppänen, J. and Väliverronen, E. (2003) “Visualizing Biodiversity: The Role of Photographs in Environmental Discourse,”Science as Culture12: 59–85 .
51.
Snow, D. and Benford, R. (1988) “Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization,” in B. Klandermans , H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds) International Social Movement Research 1, pp. 197–218. London: JAI Press .
52.
Tiedebarometri (2001) Tutkimus suomalaisten suhtautumisesta tieteeseen ja tieteellis-tekniseen kehitykseen (Science Barometer: the Attitudes Towards Science and Technology in Finland). Helsinki: Tieteen tiedotus .
53.
Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps. Science, Genetics and Popular Culture. New Haven & London: Yale University Press .
54.
Väliverronen, E. (1998) “Biodiversity and the Power of Metaphor in Environmental Discourse,”Science Studies11: 19–34 .
55.
Väliverronen, E. and Hellsten, I. (2002) “From ‘Burning Library’ to ‘Green Medicine’: The Role of Metaphors in Communicating Biodiversity,”Science Communication24: 229–245 .
56.
van der Blonk, H. (2003) “Managing Genes: Changing Genes and Changing Strategies,” paper presented at Biotech Society conference, September. Espoo, Finland.
