This article reports on a media study on the coverage of sociobiology (SB) in the German media. The analyses show a decoupling between the academic discussion and the German media coverage: when the scientific debates about SB were at their height (late 1970s), nearly no reporting occurred in the German press, whereas from the middle of the 1990s onwards, when the academic discussion had settled, SB was presented increasingly often. The case reveals the importance of cultural contexts in shaping popular science coverage, making SB a non-issue in the German media at the times of its most intense scientific debate. Factors contributing to this particular situation in German academia and popular culture are discussed. Comparisons with other studies show how the late renaissance of SB in Germany in the late 1990s is due to media attention towards the new biosciences.
AllenE. (1975) Against sociobiology. New York Times Review of Books, 13November, pp. 82, 184–6.
2.
BauerMW (2000) Science and the media as cultural indicator: Contextualizing surveys with media analysis. In: DierkesMGroteCv (eds) Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood, 157–78.
3.
BauerMWDurantJRagnarsdottirARudolfsdottirA (1995) Science and Technology in the British Press: Research Report: 1946–1990. London: Science Museum.
4.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaPGornevG (2006) Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science36(1): 99–131.
5.
Behavioural & Brain Sciences (1999) Commentaries on Rose, ‘Précis of lifelines: Biology, freedom, determinism’. Behavioural & Brain Sciences22: 885–921.
6.
BenderWHauskellerCManzeiA (eds) (2005) Crossing Borders. Grenzüberschreitungen. Ethical, legal, economic and religious views on stem cell research: Global perspectives. Münster: Agenda Verlag.
7.
BenfordG (2001) Im Namen der Klone: Wir sind doch keine Ungeheuer (Speaking for clones, we are no monsters). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31March.
8.
BereczkeiT (1993) An intellectual legacy of the past: The reception of sociobiology in the East-European countries. Biology and Philosophy8: 399–407.
9.
BischofN (1991) Gescheiter als alle die Laffen: Ein Psychogramm von Konrad Lorenz. Hamburg: Rasch & Röhring.
10.
BlechJ (2000) Dämonen der Begierde. Der Spiegel, 17April2000.
11.
BlöbaumBGörkeAWiedK (2004) Quellen der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung: Inhaltsanalyse und Befragung. Münster: Universität Münster, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft.
12.
BraunTGlänzelWSchubertA (1989) National publication patterns and citation impact in the multidisciplinary journals Science and Nature. Scientometrics17: 11–14.
13.
BrigandtI (2005) The instinct concept of the early Konrad Lorenz’Journal of the History of Biology38: 571–60.
14.
BrownA (1999) The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Become Selfish Gods. London: Simon & Schuster.
15.
BucchiM (1996) When scientists turn to the public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science5: 375–97.
16.
BucchiMTrenchB (eds) (2008) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
17.
BurkhardtRWJr (2005) Patterns of Behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the Founding of Ethology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
18.
CassidyA (2005) Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: An unusual case of science in the media?Public Understanding of Science14: 115–41.
19.
CassidyA (2007) The (sexual)politics of evolution: Popular controversy in the late 20th-century United Kingdom. History of Psychology10(2): 199–226.
20.
ChengDClaessensM.GascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) (2008) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
21.
DurantJBauerMGaskellG (eds) (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
22.
EulerHVolandE (2001) The reception of sociobiology in german psychology and anthropology. In: PetersonSASomitA (eds) Evolutionary Approaches in the Behavioral Sciences: Towards a Better Understanding of Human Nature. Oxford: Elsevier, 277–86.
23.
FeltUWynneB (eds) (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Brussels: European Commission.
24.
Flad-SchnorrenbergB (1978) Der Mensch in der Froschperspektive. (Man from a frog perspective). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25July.
25.
FögerBTaschwerK (2001) Die andere Seite des Spiegels: Konrad Lorenz und der Nationalsozialismus. Vienna: Czernin Verlag.
26.
FranzenM (2009) Torwächter der Wissenschaft oder Einfallstor für die Massenmedien? Zur Rolle von Science und Nature an der Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft und Medienöffentlichkeit. In: StöckelSLisnerWRüveG (eds) Das Medium der Wissenschaftszeitschrift seit dem 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag.
27.
FranzenM (in press) Die Medialität wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften. Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
28.
GaskellGBauerMW (eds) (2001) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
29.
GuttelingJMOlofssonAFjaestadBKohringMGoerkeABauerMRusanenT (2002) Media coverage 1973–1996: Trends and dynamics. In: BauerMWGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press/Science Museum.
30.
HampelJPfenningUKohringMGörkeARuhrmannG (2001) Biotechnology boom and market failure: Two sides of the German coin. In: GaskellGBauerMW (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum, 191–203.
31.
HemmingerHJ (1983) Der Mensch: Marionette der Evolution? Eine Kritik an der Soziobiologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag.
32.
JianhuiLFanH (2003) Science as ideology: The rejection and reception of sociobiology in China. Journal of the History of Biology36: 567–78.
33.
KalikowTJ (1983) Konrad Lorenz’s ethological theory: Explanations and ideology 1938–1943. Journal of the History of Biology16(1): 39–73.
34.
KiernanV (2003) Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication25(1): 3–13.
35.
KnappA (1989) Soziobiologie und Moraltheorie: Kritik der ethischen Folgerungen moderner Biologie. Weinheim: Acta Humaniora.
36.
KohringM (2005) Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: UVK.
37.
KohringMGörkeARuhrmannG (1999) Das Bild der Gentechnik in den internationalen Medien: eine Inhaltsanalyse meinungsführender Zeitschriften. In: HampelJRennO (eds) Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Theorie. Frankfurt Main: Campus, 292–316.
38.
LaFoletteM (1990) Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910–1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LinkeS (2007) Darwins Erben in den Medien: Eine wissenschafts– und mediensoziologische Fallstudie zur Renaissance der Soziobiologie. Bielefeld: Transcript.
40.
LinkeSCassidyA (2006) Human nature in the media: Sociobiology and related fields between scientific and media discussions. Paper presented at the EASST conference, 23–26 August, Lausanne, Switzerland.
41.
LorenzK (1940) Durch Domestikation verursachte Störungen arteigenen Verhaltens. Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie und Charakterkunde59(1&2): 2–81.
42.
MarksLA.KalaitzandonakesNWilkinsLZakharovaL (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science16: 183–203.
43.
MetzgerS (2001) Bio-Culture: biologistische Diskursstrategien im Feuilleton 2000. In KleebergBMetzgerSRappWWalterT (eds) Die List der Gene. Strategeme eines neuen Menschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 73–113.
44.
MysterudI (2004) One name for the evolutionary baby? A preliminary guide for everyone confused by the chaos of names. Social Science Information43: 95–114.
45.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman & Company.
46.
PahlC (1998) Die Bedeutung von Wissenschaftsjournalen für die Themenauswahl in den Wissenschaftsressorts deutscher Zeitungen am Beispiel medizinischer Themen. Rundfunk und Fernsehen46: 243–53.
47.
PellechiaMG (1997) Trends in Science Coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6: 49–68.
48.
PinkerS (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books.
49.
QuittererJRunggaldierE (eds) (1999) Der neue Naturalismus: eine Herausforderung an das christliche Menschenbild. Köln: Kohlhammer.
50.
RensbergerB (1975) Sociobiology: Updating Darwin on behavior. New York Times, 28May, pp. 1, 52.
51.
RoseS (1999) Précis of lifelines: Biology, freedom, determinism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences22: 871–85.
52.
RoseS (2003) Lifelines: Life beyond the Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
SahlinsMD (1976) The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
54.
SakuraO (1998) Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan. Biology and Philosophy13: 341–57.
55.
SchirrmacherF (ed.) (2001) Die Darwin AG. Wie Nanotechnologie, Biotechnologie und Computer den neuen Menschen träumen. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
56.
SegerstråleU (2000) Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
SetäläVVäliverronenE (2010) Public perception of evolution and the rise of evolutionary psychology in Finland. Public Understanding of Science(online first). Available at: pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/24/0963662509358502
58.
Sociobiology Study Group. (1976) Sociobiology: Another biological determinism. Bioscience26(3): 182–86.
59.
SperlingS (2008) Converting ethics into reason: German stem cell policy between science and the law. Science as Culture17(4): 363–75.
60.
TaschwerKFögerB (2003) Konrad Lorenz. Biographie. Vienna: Zsolnay.
61.
VossM (2010) Gesunde Gene. Die mediale Diskussion um die Gentherapie. Bielefeld: Transcript.
62.
WadeN (1976) Sociobiology: Troubled birth for a new discipline. Science191: 1151–55.
63.
WeingartP (1997) Preface. In: WeingartPMitchelSDRichersonPJMaasenS (eds) Human By Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, vii–x.
64.
WeingartP (2001) Stunde der Wahrheit?Weilerswist: Velbrück.
65.
WeingartPSalzmannCWörmannS (2008) The social embedding of biomedicine: An analysis of German media debates 1995–2004. Public Understanding of Science17: 381–96.
66.
WilsonEO (1975a) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
WilsonEO (1975b) For sociobiology. New York Times Review of Books, 11December, pp. 60–61.
