Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model

Nicola J Marks, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Published online: December 2009

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005862.pub2

Genetics is relevant to many aspects of our lives. According to the deficit model of public understanding, any misgivings people have about genetics and its applications stem from a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles. Consequently, education in genetics should lead to improved literacy and therefore support for this area. However, a number of studies show that education campaigns do not automatically lead to increased public support. Instead, it has been argued that understanding is a complex and dynamic process whereby people make sense of information in many different ways, which depend on prior knowledge and on their social and cultural locations. Therefore, members of the public should not be seen as deficient in understanding. Rather, it is argued that they have sophisticated understandings which should be acknowledged, and processes of engagement between science and public are put forward.

Key concepts:

  • According to the deficit model, lack of public understanding of genetics leads to an inability to fully participate in social life and potentially lack of support for new technologies. This can be remedied by education.
  • According to critical approaches to public understanding, ‘understanding’ is a complex process that involves social and cultural factors; the focus is on ‘knowledges in context’.
  • Public engagement, where people with different kinds of knowledge and opinions are consulted instead of merely educated, may help improve science–society relations.

Keywords: genetics; citizenship; public understanding; genetic literacy; participation; lay knowledge

 References
    ePath ASBC (2009) ASCB Statement in Support of Research on Genetically Modified Organisms. http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=315&Itemid=31. Accessed on 15 July.
    Collins HM and Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.
    Condit C (1999a) How the public understands genetics: non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the ‘blueprint’ metaphor. Public Understanding of Science 8: 169–180.
    book Condit C (1999b) The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    Condit C (2001) What is ‘public opinion about genetics’? Nature Reviews. Genetics 2: 811–815.
    Cunningham-Burley S (2006) Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genetics 9: 204–210.
    ePath Deutsche Welle (2008) Public Needs Better Understanding of Genetics, Expert Says. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3524469,00.html. Accessed on 15 July 2009.
    book Durant J, Hansen A and Bauer M (1995) "Public understanding of the new genetics". In: Marteau T and Richards M (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Edwards J (2002) Taking ‘public understanding’ seriously. New Genetics and Society 21: 315–325.
    Evans G and Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 4: 57–74.
    Hallowell N, Statham H and Murton F (1998) Women's understanding of their risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling 7: 345–364.
    Hampel J, Pfenning U and Peters H (2000) Attitudes towards genetic engineering. New Genetics and Society 19: 233–250.
    Henneman L, Timmermans DRM and Van der Wal G (2004) Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information. Community Genetics 7: 33–43.
    ePath HGC (2001) Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information, People's Panel Quantitative Study Conducted for the Human Genetics Commission. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/morigeneticattitudes.pdf. Accessed on 15 July 2009.
    book HGC (2002) The Supply of Genetic Tests Direct to the Public: A Consultation Document. London, UK: HGC.
    book HGC (2006) Making Babies: Reproductive Decisions and Genetic Technologies. London, UK: HGC.
    ePath HGC (2009) Human Genetics Commission Home Page. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/index.asp?ContentId=1. Accessed on 16 July.
    Hickman F, Kennedy M and McInerny J (1978) Human genetics education: result of BSCS needs assessment surveys. American Biology Teacher 38: 285–308.
    book Irwin A (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London, UK: Routledge.
    Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10: 1–18.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.
    book Irwin A and Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kerr A and Cunningham-Burley S (1998) The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science 7: 41–60.
    book Lambert H and Rose H (1996) "Disembodied knowledge? Making sense of medical science". In: Irwin A and Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 65–83. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP et al. (2004) Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling 13: 305–320.
    book Layton D, Jenkins E, MacGill S and Davey A (1992) Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Driffield, UK: Studies in Education Limited.
    Martin PM (1998) Lay understanding of Mendelian genetics. Endeavour 22: 92–93.
    book Martin S and Tait J (1993) Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, Centre for Technology Strategy.
    other Moore A (in press) Public bioethics and public engagement: the politics of ‘proper talk’. Public Understanding of Science.
    Myers M, Bernhardt B, Tambor E and Holtzman N (1994) Involving consumers in the development of an educational program for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. American Journal of Human Genetics 54: 719–726.
    book Nelkin D and Lindee S (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: WH Freeman.
    book Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1993) Genetic Screening – Ethical Issues. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.
    Parsons E and Atkinson P (1992) Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociology of Health and Illness 14: 437–455.
    Pfister H-R, Bohm G and Jungermann H (2000) The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: knowledge and evaluations. New Genetics and Society 19: 295–316.
    Rapp R (1988) Chromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counseling. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 2: 143–157.
    Richards M (1996) Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance. Public Understanding of Science 5: 217–230.
    Sanders T, Campbell R, Donovan J and Sharp D (2007) Narrative accounts of hereditary risk: knowledge about family history, lay theories of disease and ‘internal’ and ‘external’ causation. Qualitative Health Research 17: 510–520.
    Scott A and Du Plessis R (2008) Eliciting situated knowledges about new technologies. Public Understanding of Science 17: 105–119.
    Sturgis P and Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13: 55–74.
    Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16: 111–121.
    Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.
 Further Reading
    book Conrad P and Gabe J (eds) (1999) Sociological Perspectives on the New Genetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
    Goven J (2006) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power; scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Science, Technology, & Human Values 31: 565–598.
    book Irwin A and Michael M (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
    Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S and Tutton R (2007) Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37: 385–411.
    Macintyre S (1995) The public understanding of science or the scientific understanding of the public? A review of the social context of the ‘new genetics’. Public Understanding of Science 4: 223–232.

Related Sub-Topics:

Philosophy of the Life Sciences | Genetic Counseling | General Genetics and Disease | Science and Society - General
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model
 
How to Cite close
Marks, Nicola J(Dec 2009) Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005862.pub2]