Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Employing a qualitative content analysis of online comments made on YouTube and letters to the editor published in US newspapers, we examine the deployment and neutralization of the evil corporation master frame in debates on two distinct biotechnologies, vaccines and genetically modified organisms. This study builds on previous research by outlining three diagnostic components of the evil corporation master frame: dishonesty, greed, and the contamination of authority. It also finds that supporters of vaccines and genetically modified organisms seek to neutralize the evil corporation master frame through aggressive, defensive, endurance, and redemptive framings. This study provides ideational detail for the ways that controversial biotechnology is constructed. The particularly vexing anti-vaccine movement is not dissimilar from other challenges to mainstream science as disparate movements draw on the same master frame. It also demonstrates how defenses of genetically modified organisms and vaccines tend to reify the anti-corporate stigma that sustains challenges to scientific authority.

Keywords

anti–genetically modified organism movement anti-vaccine movement biotechnology and culture biotechnology corporations discourses of science framing risk genetically modified food health communication vaccine hesitancy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albert

(2010) New technologies and food labelling: The controversy over labelling of foods derived from genetically modified crops. In: Albert

(ed.) Innovations in Food Labelling. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 153–167.

Altheide

(1987) Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology 10(1): 65–77.

Angell

(2004) The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York, NY: Random House.

Batista

Oliveira

(2009) Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends in Biotechnology 27(5): 277–286.

Beck

(1999) World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Berger

Luckmann

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Bradshaw

Shelton

Wollney

Treise

Auguste

(2021) Pro-vaxxers get out: Anti-vaccination advocates influence undecided first-time, pregnant, and new mothers on Facebook. Health Communication 36(6): 693–702.

Bruce

(2017) Frankenfish or fish to feed the world? Scientism and biotechnology regulatory policy. Rural Sociology 82(4): 628–663.

Copenhagen Consensus (2008) Copenhagen Consensus Results–2008 Results. Copenhagen Consensus Center. Available at: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/cc08_results_final_0.pdf (accessed 8 July 2022).

10.

Douglas

Samant

(2018) The vaccine industry. Plotkin’s Vaccines 43: 41–50.e1.

11.

Dubé

Ward

Verger

MacDonald

(2021) Vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and anti-vaccination: Trends and future prospects for public health. Annual Review of Public Health 42(1): 175–191.

12.

Eliasoph

(1997) “Close to home”: The work of avoiding politics. Theory and Society 265: 605–647.

13.

Flynn

(2015) Pharmaceutical autonomy —Technology, alliances, and norms, states and citizens: Accommodation, facilitation and resistance to globalization. Current Perspectives in Social Theory 34: 41–64.

14.

Fridman

Gershon

Gneezy

(2021) COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0250123.

15.

Funk

(2020) About half of U.S. adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/18/about-half-of-u-s-adults-are-wary-of-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods-but-many-also-see-advantages/ (accessed 23 April 2020).

16.

Funk

Kennedy

(2016) The new food fights: U.S. public divides over food science. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_FINAL.pdf (accessed 20 August 2021).

17.

Funk

Hefferon

Kennedy

Johnson

(2019) Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/08/PS_08.02.19_trust.in_.scientists_FULLREPORT_8.5.19.pdf (accessed 8 July 2022).

18.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Goldacre

(2013) Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

20.

Hacker

(2008) The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, revised updated edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21.

Heller

(2007) Techne versus technoscience: Divergent (and ambiguous) notions of food “quality” in the French debate over GM crops. American Anthropologist 109(4): 603–615.

22.

Immunize.org (2021a) Exemptions permitted to school and childcare immunization requirements. Available at: https://www.immunize.org/laws/exemptions.pdf (accessed 10 July 2022).

23.

Immunize.org (2021b) State mandates on immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases: Exemptions permitted for state immunization requirements. Available at: https://www.immunize.org/laws/exemptions.asp (accessed 23 March 2022).

24.

Jamison

Quinn

Freimuth

(2019) You don’t trust a government vaccine’: Narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and White adults. Social Science and Medicine 221: 87–94.

25.

Jenkins

Moreno

(2020) Vaccination discussion among parents on social media: A content analysis of comments on parenting blogs. Journal of Health Communication 25(3): 232–242.

26.

Kamle

Ali

(2013) Genetically modified crops: Detection strategies and biosafety issues. Gene 522(2): 123–132.

27.

Kata

(2012) Anti—vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination Movement. Vaccine 30(25): 3778–3789.

28.

Kennedy

(2017) Vampire Capitalism: Fractured Societies and Alternative Futures. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Lang

(2013) Elements of public trust in the American food system: Experts, organizations, and genetically modified food. Food Policy 41: 145–154.

30.

Lemaux

(2008) Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 771–812.

31.

Lemaux

(2009) Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part II). Annual Review of Plant Biology 60: 511–559.

32.

Light

(2010) The Risks of Prescription Drugs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

33.

Light

Lexchin

(2021) Pharmaceuticals as a market for “lemons”: Theory and practice. Social Science and Medicine 268: 113368.

34.

Lofland

Snow

Anderson

Lofland

(2006) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

35.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

36.

Mead

(1934) Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

37.

Mnookin

(2011) The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

38.

Nally

(2019) The anti-vaccine movement shows the peril of a post-truth world. World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/the-anti-vaccine-movement-shows-the-peril-of-a-post-truth-world/ (accessed 10 April 2019).

39.

National Academy of Sciencies (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395

40.

Perrin

(2005) National threat and political culture: Authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism, and the September 11 attacks. Political Psychology 26(2): 167–194.

41.

Pew Research Center (2017) Vast majority of Americans say benefits of childhood vaccines outweigh risks. Pew Research Center Science and Society. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2017/02/02/vast-majority-of-americans-say-benefits-of-childhood-vaccines-outweigh-risks/ (accessed 23 April 2020).

42.

Pringle

(2003) Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto–The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

43.

Reich

(2016) Calling the Shots: Why Parents Reject Vaccines. New York, NY: New York University Press.

44.

Reich

(2020) Vaccine refusal and pharmaceutical acquiescence: Parental control and ambivalence in managing children’s health. American Sociological Review 85(1): 106–127.

45.

Silva

(2014) Neutralizing problematic frames in the culture wars: Anti-evolutionists grapple with religion. Symbolic Interaction 37(2): 226–245.

46.

Silva

Flynn

(2020) Liminal stigma and disaligning activity: Online comments about Trump’s family separation policy. Symbolic Interaction 43(1): 126–155.

47.

Snow

(2008) Elaborating the discursive contexts of framing: Discursive fields and spaces. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 30: 3–28.

48.

Snow

Benford

(1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1(1): 197–217.

49.

Snow

Benford

(1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory 133: 155.

50.

Swidler

(1986) Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286.

51.

Tau

Yahav

Shepshelovich

(2020) Postmarketing safety of vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: A cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine 173(6): 445–449.

52.

Tsou

Thelwall

Mongeon

Sugimoto

(2014) A community of curious souls: An analysis of commenting behavior on TED talks videos. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93609.

53.

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2002) Understanding the conditions for public discourse: Four rules for selecting letters to the editor. Journalism Studies 3(1): 69–81.

54.

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2004) A “legitimate beef” or “raw meat”? Civility, multiculturalism, and letters to the editor. Communication Review 7(1): 89–105.

55.

Wohlers

(2013) Labeling of genetically modified food: Closer to reality in the United States? Politics and the Life Sciences 32(1): 73–84.

56.

Wolfe

Sharp

(2002) Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ : British Medical Journal 325(7361): 430–432.

57.

Young

(2013) Working the fringes: The role of letters to the editor in advancing non-standard media narratives about climate change. Public Understanding of Science 22(4): 443–459.

58.

Zschau

Adams

Shriver

(2012) Reframing the biotechnology debate: The deconstructive efforts of the council of 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.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

The evil corporation master frame: The cases of vaccines and genetic modification

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material