Under what conditions does the perceived “unnaturalness” of a specific application of synthetic biology influence its public acceptability? Using data from a framing experiment embedded in a national survey of Canadian adults, we argue that this consideration leads to negative perceptions of the technology only when opponents of the application use rhetoric that refers to its unnaturalness and when characteristics of the application itself, such as the use of genetic material from “dissimilar” organisms, increase the perceived relevance of such arguments. Additionally, we find that individuals who view nature as sacred or spiritual are most responsive to unnaturalness framing.
AndersonN. H.ZalinskiJ. (1991). Functional measurement approach to self-estimation in multiattribute evaluation. In AndersonN. H. (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory: Vol. 1. Cognition (pp. 145-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
BauerM. (2002). Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 93-11.
4.
BinderA. R.CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.ShawB. R.CorleyE. A. (2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 830-847.
5.
BowersJ. (2011). Making effects manifest in randomized experiments. In DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P.KuklinskiJ. H.LupiaA. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 459-480). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
8.
ChopraP.KammaA. (2005). Engineering life through synthetic biology. In Silico Biology, 6, 401-410.
9.
ColemanC.-L.RitchieL. D. (2011). Examining metaphors in biopolitical discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 7(1), 29-59.
10.
CoxD. R.ReidN. (2000). The theory of the design of experiments. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
11.
CoyleF.FairweatherJ. (2005). Space, time, and nature: Exploring the public reception of biotechnology in New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 143-161.
12.
CrawleyC. E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 28, 314-346.
13.
DragojlovicN.EinsiedelE. (2012). Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662512445011.
14.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
15.
EndyD. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438, 449-453.
16.
EvensenC.HobanT.WoodrumE. (2000). Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 13(1), 43-57.
17.
FrewerL. J.HowardC.ShepherdR. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 22, 98-124.
18.
FrewerL. J.ShepherdR. (1995). Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12, 48-57.
19.
GaskellG.AllansdottirA.AllumN.CastroP.EsmerY.FischlerC.WagnerW. (2011). The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 29, 113-114.
20.
GaskellG.StaresS.AllansdottirA.AllumN.CastroP.EsmerY.WagnerW. (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
21.
HansenA. (2006). Tampering with nature: “Nature” and the “natural” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media, Culture & Society, 28, 811-834.
IyengarS. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
24.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 341-355.
25.
KnightA. J. (2006). Does application matter? An examination of public perception of agricultural biotechnology applications. Agricultural Biology Forum, 9, 121-128.
26.
KnightA. J. (2009). Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 177-188.
MielbyH.SandoeP.LassenJ. (2012). The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662511430577
29.
MyskjaB. K. (2006). The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 19, 225-238.
30.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effects on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
31.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M.ClawsonR. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
32.
PargamentK. I.MahoneyA. (2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179-198.
33.
PetersH. P.LangJ. T.SawickaM.HallmanW. K. (2007). Culture and technological innovation: Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 191-220.
34.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
35.
PriceV.TewksburyD.PowersE. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
36.
Royal Society of Chemistry. (2008). Engineering life: The emerging field of synthetic biology. London, England: Institute of Physics.
37.
ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297-316.
38.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
39.
ShawA. (2002). “It just goes against the grain”: Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273-291.
40.
ShenF.EdwardsH. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809.
41.
StewartC. O. (2012). The influence of news frames and science background on attributions about embryonic and adult stem cell research: Frames as heuristic/biasing cues. Science Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1075547012440517
42.
StewartC. O.DickersonD. L.HotchkissR. (2009). Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Science Communication, 30, 427-452.
43.
TarakeshwarN.SwankA. B.PargamentK. I.MahoneyA. (2001). The sanctification of nature and theological conservatism: A study of opposing religious correlates of environmentalism. Review of Religious Research, 42, 387-404.
44.
TenbültP.de VriesN. K.DreezensE.MartijnC. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47-50.
45.
TomzM.WittenbergJ.KingG. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results [Computer software]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
46.
VandermoereF.BlanchemancheS.BiebersteinA.MaretteS.RoosenJ. (2011). The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views of science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 195-206.
47.
Van der PligtJ.EiserJ. R. (1984). Dimensional salience, judgment, and attitudes. In EiserJ. R. (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 161-177). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
48.
VerhoogH. (2003). Naturalness and the genetic modification of animals. Trends in Biotechnology, 21, 294-297.
49.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50.
ZallerJ.FeldmanS. (1992). Theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
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.
