Depicting Science in a Public Debate: The Philippine Legal Challenge Against GMO Eggplant

Abstract

In 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled against the field testing of Bt eggplant, a genetically modified crop. This decision was covered extensively in the local press, forcing scientists to defend their research. We used qualitative, inductive analysis to examine how three news outlets constructed science in their coverage of the issue. We found that science was constructed through four themes: science searched for proof, absolute consensus had to be reached, the characteristics of scientific inquiry are used to discredit scientists, and science is aware of its logical limits. These findings have implications for the public acceptance of innovations.

Keywords

risk communication genetically modified food genetically modified crops science journalism Philippines nature of science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Alave

K. L.

(2012, May 14). Greenpeace calls for more stringent checks on GMOs. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

Augoustinos

Crabb

Shepherd

(2010). Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 98-114.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65, 745-769.

Carver

R. B.

Rodland

E. A.

Breivik

(2012). Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers. Science Communication, 35, 449-475.

*Chanco

(2015, December 30). The end of agri research? The Philippine Star, Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com

Cook

Robbins

P. T.

Pieri

(2006). “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 5-29.

Crawley

C. E.

(2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 8, 314-346.

*Cruz

N. H.

(2013, August 13). To plant or not to plant GMO crops. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

Dixon

Hubner

(2018). Neutralizing the effect of political worldviews by communicating scientific agreement: A thought-listing study. Science Communication, 40, 393-415.

10.

Rachul

(2012). Chinese newspaper coverage of genetically modified organisms. BMC Public Health, 12, 326.

11.

Dumas-Mallet

Smith

Boraud

Gonon

(2018). Scientific uncertainty in the press: How newspapers describe initial biomedical findings. Science Communication, 40, 124-141.

12.

*Dy

R. T.

(2016, February 8). SC’s Bt talong ruling’s economic implications. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

13.

Escano

M. T. R.

(2013). Bt eggplant: A review of science communication approach in the Philippines. International Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 61-68.

14.

*Fernandez

R. A.

(2011, February 20). Anti-GMO activists destroy Bt eggplants. The Philippine Star, Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com

15.

*Fernandez

R.A.

(2013, July 15). UP students’ group refutes CA ruling vs GM eggplant. The Philippine Star, Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com

16.

Field

Powell

(2001). Public understanding of science vs. public understanding of research. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 421-426.

17.

Hardy

B. W.

Tallapragada

Besley

J. C.

Yuan

(2019). The effects of the “war on science” frame on scientists’ credibility. Science Communication, 41(1), 90-112. doi:10.1177/1075547018822081

18.

Hatch

J. A.

(2001). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: SUNY Press.

19.

Hansen

(2006). Tampering with nature: “Nature” and the “natural” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media, Culture, & Society, 28, 811-834.

20.

Jackson

J. K.

(2011). Doomsday ecology and empathy for nature: Women scientists in “B” horror movies. Science Communication, 33, 533-555.

21.

Jalmasco

N. M.

(2014, May 28). Science education realities. Manila Times. Retrieved from http://www.manilatimes.net/science-education-realities/100096/

22.

Kuhn

(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

*Layug-Rosero

(2014, February 7). Pinoy farmers speak up in favor of GMOs. GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

24.

Lewison

(2007). The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002-2004. Scientometrics, 72, 439-458.

25.

Long

Steinke

(1996). The thrill of everyday science: Images of science and scientists on children’s educational science programmes in the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 101-119.

26.

Lundy

L. K.

Irani

T. A.

(2004). Framing biotechnology: A comparison of US and British national newspapers. Journal of Applied Communications, 88(2), 37-49.

27.

M2.0 Communications Inc. (2017). The top 9 broadsheets in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.m2comms.com/blog/2017/2/21/the-9-top-broadsheets-in-the-philippines

28.

*Magno

(2016, March 21). Funny. The Philippine Star, Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com

29.

Maeseele

P. A.

Schuurman

(2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication, 29, 435-471.

30.

*Mariano

R. V.

(2016, March 4). KMP reiterates stand vs. GM tech and crops. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

31.

Marks

L. A.

Kalaitzandonakes

Allison

Zakharova

(2003). Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an effect? Journal of Agribusiness, 21(1), 1-20.

32.

Marks

L. A.

Kalaitzandonakes

Wilkins

Zakharova

(2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 183-203.

33.

*Maslog

C. C.

(2015, December 28). Analysis: a quaint court ruling on GM eggplant. GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

34.

McComas

W. F.

Almazroa

Clough

M. P.

(1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.

35.

McInerney

Bird

Nucci

(2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication, 26, 44-74.

36.

Media Ownership Monitor Philippines. (2018). A tale of two conglomerates. Retrieved from https://philippines.mom-rsf.org/en/owners/companies/abs-cbn-and-gma7/

37.

*Meruenas

(2013, May 24). Philippine court orders end to genetically-modified eggplant. GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

38.

*Montenegro

(2014, October 24). Pinoy scientists push anew for Bt eggplant. GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

39.

*Montenegro

(2015, March 16). Greenpeace ex-officer says blocking GMO rice is ‘immoral and illegal’. GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

40.

Navarro

M. J.

Escaler

Ponce

Leon

M. I.

Tababa

S. P.

(2007). The Bt maize experience in the Philippines: A multi-stakeholder convergence. In Brossard

Shanahan

Nesbitt

T. C.

(Eds.), The media, the public and agricultural biotechnology (pp. 327-337). London, England: CABI International.

41.

Owens

(2011). Madame Curie above the fold: Divergent perspectives on Curie’s visit to the United States in the American press. Science Communication, 33, 98-119.

42.

Panopio

J. A.

Navarro

M. J.

(2011). Drama and communication behind Asia’s first commercialized Bt corn. In Navarro

M. J.

Hautea

R. A.

(Eds.), Communication challenges and convergence in crop biotechnology (pp. 43-80). New York, NY: International Service for the Acquisition and Agri-biotech Applications.

43.

*Pernia

E. M.

(2014, January 13). Science a sine qua non for human progress. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

44.

Pollock

J. C.

Peitz

Watson

Esposito

Nichilo

Etheridge . . . Hart-McGonigle

(2017). Comparing cross-national coverage of genetically modified organisms: A community structure approach. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 571-596.

45.

Popper

(1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.

46.

Post

Maier

(2016). Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 944-960.

47.

Previs

K. K.

(2016). Gender and race representations of scientists in Highlights for Children: A content analysis. Science Communication, 38, 303-327.

48.

Priest

S. H.

(1995). Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 39-54.

49.

Priest

S. H.

(2006). Public discourse and scientific controversy: A Spiral-of-Silence analysis of biotechnology opinion in the United States. Science Communication, 28, 195-215.

50.

Priest

S. H.

(2016). Communicating climate change: The path forward. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

51.

*Punay

(2012, April 27). SC asked to stop production of genetically modified eggplants. The Philippine Star, Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com

52.

*Purugganan

(2013, May 27). Who’s afraid of the GMO eggplant? GMA News, Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com

53.

Retzbach

Otto

Maier

(2016). Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 638-655.

54.

Schwartz

R. S.

Lederman

N. G.

Crawford

B. A.

(2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.

55.

Tai

(2009). Uncertainty about uncertainty: The impact of judicial decisions on assessing scientific uncertainty. Journal of Constitutional Law, 11, 671-727.

56.

Talisayon

V. M.

De Guzman

F. S.

Balbin

C. R.

(2006). Science-related attitudes and interests of students. Retrieved from https://roseproject.no/network/countries/philippines/phl-talisayon-ioste2006.pdf

57.

Ten Eyck

T. A.

Williment

. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971–2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication, 25, 129-152.

58.

*Tuazon

O. M.

(2016, March 13). Bt talong: better safe than sorry. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

59.

Van den Brul

. (1995). Perceptions of science: How scientists and others view the media reporting of science. Studies in Science Education, 25(1), 211-237.

60.

*Vallejo

B. M.

Jr. (2016, January 25). A scientist’s take on Sc’s decision on Bt ‘talong’. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

61.

Vilella-Vila

Costa-Font

(2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2095-2106.

62.

World Bank. (2013). Researchers in R&D per million people. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?locations=PH

63.

Yamaguchi

Harris

C. K.

Busch

(2003). Agri-food biotechnology discourse in India. Science, Technology, & Society, 8(1), 47-72.

64.

*Yap

D. J.

Aning

(2013, May 25). Court of Appeals stops field trials of genetically modified eggplants. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.net

65.

Zajc

Erjavec

(2014). “Othering” agricultural biotechnology: Slovenian media representation of agricultural biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 678-687.