This study examines discourses in Chinese online discussions of gene editing by multiple social actors on Weibo before and after a significant scientific crisis, the 2018 scandal of Chinese gene-edited human babies. A content analysis of 2074 posts was done to identify frames, emotions, and metaphors. Findings reveal that Chinese social media have opened up new spaces for multiple social actors to generate multiple discourses. This has resulted in a more participatory public engagement with science and technology on Chinese social media, potentially influencing the online agenda and policy decisions on science and technology. Finally, findings indicate that a scientific crisis can serve as a trigger for significant changes in public attitudes and opinions regarding gene editing.
ArakiMIshiiT (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology12: 108–119.
2.
BatesBR (2005) Public culture and public understanding of genetics: A focus group study. Public Understanding of Science14(1): 47–65.
3.
BurnsTWO’ConnorDJStocklmayerSM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12(2): 183–202.
4.
ChenLZhangZ (2018) Chinese publics’ cognition and attitudes towards gene-editing technology. Report, Sun Yat-Sen University, China.
5.
ChilversJ (2013) Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication35(3): 283–310.
6.
ChoiYLinYH (2009) Consumer responses to Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards: Exploring two types of emotion. Journal of Public Relations Research21(2): 198–207.
7.
ChyiHIMcCombsM (2004) Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the columbine school shootings. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly81(1): 22–35.
8.
ConditCM (2010) Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics11(1): 339–359.
9.
CookGPieriERobbinsPT (2004) “The scientists think and the public feels”: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society15(4): 433–449.
10.
CuiKShoemakerSP (2018) Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. NPJ Science of Food2: 10.
11.
CyranoskiDReardonS (2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature. Epub ahead of print 22April. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17378.
12.
DeLisleJGoldsteinAYangG (2016) The Internet, Social Media, and a Changing China. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
13.
DuLRachulC (2012) Chinese newspaper coverage of genetically modified organisms. BMC Public Health12: 326–330.
14.
DurantJHansenABauerM (1996) Public understanding of the new genetics. In: MarteauTRichardsM (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 235–248.
15.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
16.
FrewerLJHowardCShepherdR (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, and Human Values22(1): 98–124.
17.
GaskellGAllumNBauerMDurantJAllansdottirABonfadelliH, et al. (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology18(9): 935–938.
18.
HollimanR (2004) Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 107–130.
19.
HorstM (2005) Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science14(2): 185–200.
20.
HoustonJBPfefferbaumBRosenholtzCE (2012) Disaster news: Framing and frame changing in coverage of major U.S. natural disasters, 2000–2010. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly89(4): 606–623.
21.
HuZ (2003) The post-WTO restructuring of the Chinese media industries and the consequences of capitalisation. Javnost—The Public10(4): 19–36.
22.
JensenE (2008) The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype in the British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 123–143.
23.
JiangY (2014) “Reversed agenda-setting effects” in China case studies of Weibo trending topics and the effects on state-owned media in China. Journal of International Communication20(2): 168–183.
24.
JonesMSalterB (2003) The governance of human genetics: Policy discourse and constructions of public trust. New Genetics and Society22(1): 21–41.
25.
KaplanAMHaenleinM (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons53(1): 59–68.
26.
KohringMGörkeA (2000) Genetic engineering in the international media: An analysis of opinion-leading magazines. New Genetics and Society19(3): 345–363.
27.
KouperI (2010) Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication9(1): 1–10.
LassenJJamisonA (2006) Genetic technologies meet the public: The discourses of concern. Science, Technology, and Human Values31(1): 8–28.
30.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
31.
LiuSMChenJH (2015) A multi-label classification based approach for sentiment classification. Expert Systems with Applications42(3): 1083–1093.
32.
LuoY (2014) The Internet and agenda setting in China: The influence of online public opinion on media coverage and government policy. International Journal of Communication8: 1289–1312.
33.
McCallieEBellLLohwaterTFalkJHLehrJLLewensteinBV, et al. (2009) Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. Report, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington, DC.
34.
MooreAStilgoeJ (2009) Experts and anecdotes: The role of “anecdotal evidence” in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values34(5): 654–677.
35.
MulkayM (1993) Rhetorics of hope and fear in the Great Embryo debate. Social Studies of Science23(4): 721–742.
36.
NerlichBClarkeDD (2003) Anatomy of a media event: How arguments clashed in the 2001 human cloning debate. New Genetics and Society22(1): 43–59.
37.
PaganoMGauvreauK (2018) Principles of Biostatistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
38.
PetersHP (2012) Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection–Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 217–239.
39.
PetersHPDunwoodyS (2016) Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 893–908.
40.
PetersenA (2001) Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine52(8): 1255–1268.
41.
PetersenA (2002) Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of dolly. Body and Society8(4): 71–90.
42.
PriestSH (2000) US public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biotechnology18(9): 939–942.
43.
RauchfleischASchäferMS (2015) Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China. Information, Communication and Society18(2): 139–155.
44.
SchäferMS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication30(4): 475–505.
45.
SingerECorningALamiasM (1998) The polls—trends: Genetic testing, engineering, and therapy. The Public Opinion Quarterly62: 633–664.
46.
SmallmanM (2018) Science to the rescue or contingent progress? Comparing 10 years of public, expert and policy discourses on new and emerging science and technology in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science27(6): 655–673.
47.
StockmannDGallagherME (2011) Remote control: How the media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comparative Political Studies44(4): 436–467.
48.
TranterK (2010) Biotechnology, media and law-making: Lessons from the cloning and stem cell controversy in Australia 1997–2002. Law, Innovation and Technology2(1): 51–93.
49.
TurneyJ (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50.
Van DijckJ (1999) Cloning humans, cloning literature: Genetics and the imagination deficit. New Genetics and Society18(1): 9–22.
51.
WangJHWangRLeeJHIaoTWUHuXWangYM, et al. (2017) Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Molecular Therapy—Methods and Clinical Development6: 40–42.
52.
WangNSheJChenJ (2014) How “big vs” dominate Chinese microblog: A comparison of verified and unverified users on Sina Weibo. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science, 2014, pp. 182–186. Available at: http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/node/25880
XiaoQ (2011) The battle for the Chinese Internet. Journal of Democracy22(2): 47–61.
55.
YangF (2016) Rethinking China’s Internet censorship: The practice of recoding and the politics of visibility. New Media & Society18(7): 1364–1381.
56.
ZhaoFChenYGeSYuXShaoSBlackM, et al. (2014) A quantitative analysis of the mass media coverage of genomics medicine in China: A call for science journalism in the developing world. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology18(4): 222–230.
57.
ZhaoYDengHYuCHuR (2019) The Chinese public’s awareness and attitudes toward genetically modified foods with different labeling. NPJ Science of Food3: 1–7.
58.
ZhouPLeydesdorffL (2006) The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy35(1): 83–104.
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.
