Nautilus

A tool for analysing and classifying the communication of genetics to the public

‘Frame that gene: A tool for analysing and classifying the communication of genetics to the public’ is the title of a commentary by Rebecca Carver, Ragnar Waldahl & Jarle Breivik of the University of Oslo in EMBO Reports ( 9, 943-947; 2008). They write:

Enabling the public to understand scientific concepts and advances, and the issues they raise, is an increasingly important challenge for scientists and politicians alike. Public opinion—received via polls and elections—can influence scientific policy-making, and hence affect the funding and even the nature or focus of research itself. The fierce dispute over genetically modified crops in Europe, and the sometimes bitter debates about research using human embryonic stem cells in both Europe and the USA, highlight the enormous importance of public opinion on scientific issues. A greater awareness of the ethical, technical and philosophical issues surrounding research, as well as a better understanding of the science itself, could lead to more rational debates and outcomes—at least, that is what many scientists hope. The media therefore has a central role in furthering or modifying the public understanding of, and engagement with, scientific issues: it is the main source of information for many people, even more so than politicians, educators or scientists.

The authors go on to outline their framing scheme, which “represents a transparent and easy way of classifying gene discourse. It can be applied to the analysis of any type of gene-related communication—including textbooks, classroom education, television programmes and government reports—and it forms a basis for quantitative analysis. One could use it to identify the ‘gene profile’ of a particular newspaper or author or to explore the effects of gene framing on the public understanding of life science in general. Framing of the gene concept has implications for important issues ranging from personal health—such as the risk of breast cancer or heart disease—to international politics—such as stem-cell research or the regulation of genetically modified crops. Assuming that this framing is largely an unconscious process, our study may act both as an eye-opener and as a helpful tool for journalists and scientists alike.”

Comments

Comments are closed.