Playing God? Media coverage of CRISPR in the United States

Abstract

Announcements in 2017 and 2018 that scientists used a gene editing technique called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) to permanently alter human embryos have highlighted the urgency in regulating the technology’s ethical, political, and legal implications. To better understand how a regulatory regime might evolve in response to CRISPR, we must examine how the media covers it. This article reviews online and television news sources in the United States to determine the tone, content, and frequency in media coverage of CRISPR. We find that coverage remained ambiguous and infrequent, as scientific research into CRISPR’s clinical potential for treating human disease surged. This infrequent coverage indicates that the media have not yet established the salience of CRISPR to a degree that engages the public or policymakers, though the issue will continue to gain importance as CRISPR transitions from experimental efforts into clinical practice.

Keywords

biotechnology CRISPR genetic and reproductive technologies media and science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AllSides (n.d.) Media bias ratings. Available at: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/ratings (accessed September 2019).

Ball

(2016) CRISPR: Implications for materials science. MRSBulletin, 17 November. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-bulletin/news/crispr-implications-for-materials-science

Barclay

(2017) Scientists successfully used CRISPR to fix a mutation that causes diseases: This is huge. Vox, 2 August. Available at: https://www.vox.com/science-and-powerfhealth/2017/8/2/16083300/crispr-heart-disease

Bauer

Bogner

(2020) Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science 229(5): 492–507.

Blake

(2014) Ranking the media from liberal to conservative, based on their audiences. The Washington Post, 21 October. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences

Blendon

Gorski

Benson

(2016) The public and the gene-editing revolution. The New England Journal of Medicine 374: 1406–1411.

Bolsen

Druckman

Cook

(2014) How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 78(1): 1–26.

Boyd

Paveglio

(2014) Front page or “buried” beneath the fold? Media coverage of carbon capture and storage. Public Understanding of Science 23(4): 411–427.

Callaway

(2016) UK scientists gain licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature, 1 February. Available at: https://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-gain-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.19270

10.

Caplan

Parent

Shen

Plunkett

(2015) No time to waste —The ethical challenges created by CRISPR. EMBO Reports 16(11): 1421–1426.

11.

Cohen

Desai

(2019) With its CRISPR revolution, China becomes a world leader in genome editing. Science, 2 August. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/its-crispr-revolution-china-becomes-world-leader-genome-editing

12.

Cyranoski

(2015) Scientists sound alarm over DNA editing of human embryos. Nature. Epub ahead of print 12 March. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17110.

13.

Cyranoski

(2020) What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research. Nature 577: 154–155.

14.

Cyranoski

Ledford

(2018) Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature 563: 607–608.

15.

Cyranoski

Reardon

(2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature. Epub ahead of print 22 April. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17378.

16.

Dahl

(2015) Contested science in the media: Linguistic traces of news writers’ framing activity. Written Communication 32: 39–65.

17.

de Vreese

(2004) The effects of frames in political television news on issue interpretation and frame salience. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81(1): 36–52.

18.

Feldman

Hart

Milosevic

(2017) Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science 26(4): 481–497.

19.

Freeman

Freeland

(2016) Media framing the reception of unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States of America. Technology in Society 44: 23–29.

20.

Giordano

Chung

Y-L

(2018) The story is that there is no story: Media framing of synthetic biology and its ethical implications in the New York Times (2005-2015). Journal of Science Communication 17(3): A02.

21.

Gschmeidler

Seiringer

(2012) “Knight in shining armour” or “Frankenstein’s creation”? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media. Public Understanding of Science 21(2): 163–173.

22.

Hart

Chinn

Soroka

(2020) Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication 42(5): 679–697.

23.

Iyengar

Massey

(2019) Scientific communication in a post-truth society. PNAS 116(16): 7656–7661.

24.

Jenkins

Graves

(2019) United States. In: Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

Nielsen

(eds) Reuters Institute: Digital News Report 2019. Oxford: Reuters Institute and University of Oxford, pp. 118–119.

25.

Jurkowitz

Mitchell

(2020) About one-fifth of Democrats and Republicans get political news in a kind of media bubble. Pew Research Center, 4 March. Available at: https://www.journalism.org/2020/03/04/about-one-fifth-of-democrats-and-republicans-get-political-news-in-a-kind-of-media-bubble/

26.

Jurkowitz

Shearer

AME

Walker

(2020) U.S. media polarization and the 2020 election: A nation divided. Pew Research Center, 24 January. Available at: https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/

27.

Lander

Baylis

Zhang

Charpentier

Berg

Bourgain

, et al. (2019) Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567(7747): 165–168.

28.

Ledford

(2015) CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 522: 20–24.

29.

Ledford

(2017) CRISPR fixes disease gene in viable human embryos. Nature 548: 13–14.

30.

Ledford

(2020) CRISPR treatment inserted directly into the body for first time. Nature 579: 184–185.

31.

Ledford

Callaway

(2020) Pioneers of revolutionary CRISPR gene editing win chemistry Nobel. Nature 586: 346–347.

32.

Lee

C-J

Scheufele

Lewenstein

(2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 240–267.

33.

Mitchell

Gottfried

Kiley

Eva Matsa

(2014) Political polarization and media habits. Pew Research Center: Journalism and Media, 21 October. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ (accessed September 2019).

34.

Mitchell

Jurkowitz

Oliphant

Shearer

(2021) How Americans navigated the news in 2020: A tumultuous year in review. Pew Research Center, 22 February. Available at: https://www.journalism.org/2021/02/22/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020/ (accessed July 2021).

35.

Morrison

de Saille

(2019) CRISPR in context: Towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing. Palgrave Communications 5: 110.

36.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) (2015) On human gene editing: International summit statement [Press release]. Available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2015/12/on-human-gene-editing-international-summit-statement

37.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) (2017a) Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

38.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) (2017b) With stringent oversight, heritable germline editing clinical trials could one day be permitted for serious conditions; non-heritable clinical trials should be limited to treating or preventing disease or disability at this time [Press release]. Available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24623

39.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), Division on Earth Life Studies, Board on Life Sciences, Board on Chemical Sciences Technology and Committee on Strategies for Identifying Addressing Potential Biodefense Vulnerabilities Posed by Synthetic Biology (2018) Biotechnology in the Age of Synthetic Biology. In: Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535871/

40.

Nisbet

Lewenstein

(2002) Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23(4): 359–391.

41.

Nisbet

Brossard

Kroepsch

(2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics 8(2): 36–70.

42.

Reardon

(2016) First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nature. Epub ahead of print 22 June. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20137.

43.

Ribeiro

Henrique

Benevenuto

Chakraborty

Kulshrestha

Babei

Gummadi

(2018) Media bias monitor: Quantifying biases of social media news outlets at large-scale. In: Proceedings of the 12th international AAAI conference of web and social media, ICWSM ’18: 290–299. Available at : https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/view/17878/0

44.

Relman

(2018a) Here’s how liberal or conservative consumers of major news outlets are. Business Insider, 8 March. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-liberal-or-conservative-major-news-outlets-are-2018-3 (accessed September 2019).

45.

Relman

(2018b) These are the most and least biased news outlets in the US, according to Americans. Business Insider, 21 June. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-biased-news-outlets-in-america-2018-6 (accessed September 2019).

46.

Scheufele

Krause

Freiling

Brossard

(2021) What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. PNAS 118(22): e2004835117.

47.

Scheufele

Xenos

Howell

Rose

Brossard

Hardy

(2017) U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357(6351): 553–554.

48.

Servick

(2017) First U.S.-based group to edit human embryos brings practice closer to clinic. Science 2 August. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/first-us-based-group-edit-human-embryos-brings-practice-closer-clinic

49.

Stapleton

(2021) Replication Data for: US Media Coverage of CRISPR. Harvard Dataverse, V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JOE5WO

50.

Stapleton

(2016) From mad cows to GMOs: The side effects of modernization. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7(3): 517–531.

51.

Toff

(2017) United States. In: Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

Levy

DAL

Nielson

(eds) Reuters Institute: Digital News Report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute and University of Oxford, pp. 102–103. Available at: https://agency.reuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/news-agency/report/risj-digital%20news%20report%202017.pdf

52.

Valkenburg

Semetko

de Vreese

(1999) The effects of news frames on readers’ thoughts and recall. Communication Research 26(5): 550–569.

53.

Zhang

Hussain

Manghwar

Xie

Zhao

, et al. (2020) Genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas system: An art, ethics and global regulatory perspective. Plant Biotechnology Journal 18(8): 1651–1669.

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

0.03 MB