Genetic Futures and the Media

Today, public debate over genetic futures takes place within a new societal context. There is a greater emphasis from policymakers on promoting engagement between sciences and publics, and mass media play a key role in this shifting relationship. Media representations of genetic futures are often subject to both positive and negative hype. This tendency towards ‘genohype’ results from the economic imperative of journalistic and entertainment media production. Moreover, symbolic representations from science fiction continue to influence mainstream news coverage of genetics, present and future. The ways in which media representations of genetic futures influence audiences are only partially known; however, it is clear that there is a complex negotiation between existing attitudes, knowledge and values and the messages communicated about genetic futures by both factual and fictional media.

Key Concepts:

  • Media coverage of genetic futures takes place within a new context for sciences–society relations.
  • The conventional ‘fact/fiction’ division cannot be consistently upheld in media representations of genetic futures, given the considerable traffic of symbols and ideas across this divide.
  • The production of media representations of genetic futures relies on information subsidies including press releases, news conferences and other methods of communicating institutionally preferred public relations information directly to the media.
  • Media can raise the salience of particular issues or aspects of the implications of genetic research, but they cannot consistently or straightforwardly change the opinions that publics hold.

Keywords: news media; public understanding of science; science journalism; science fiction; public engagement with science; human cloning

 References
    Bartlett C, Sterne J and Egger M (2002) What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. British Medical Journal 325: 81–84.
    book Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
    book Beck U (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity.
    book Bodmer W and Mackie R (1997) Book of Man: The Human Genome Project and the Quest to Discover Our Genetic Heritage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ePath Corrado M (2002) Do we trust today's scientists? Available at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/royalsociety.shtml.
    book Durant J, Bauer M and Gaskell G (eds) (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
    book Einsiedel E, Allansdottir A, Chatjouli A et al. (2002) "Brave new sheep – the clone named Dolly". In: Bauer MW and Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 313–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    book Fishman M (1980) Manufacturing the News. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    book Gandy OH (1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    book Hall S (1980) "Encoding/decoding". In: Hall S, Hobson D, Lowe A and Willis P (eds) Culture, Media, Language, pp. 128–138. London: Hutchinson.
    book Haran J, Kitzinger J, McNeil M and O'Riordan K (2008) Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice. London: Routledge.
    Holliman R (2004) Media coverage of cloning: a study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science 13: 107–130.
    book Holliman R and Jensen E (2009) "(In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda". In: Holliman R, Whitelegg L, Scanlon E, Smidt S and Thomas J (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media, pp. 35–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    other House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Third Report on Science and Society. London: House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
    Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with ‘new’ scientific governace. Social Studies of Science 36(2) : 299–320.
    Jaroff L (1989) The gene hunt. Time, 20 March.
    Jensen E (2008a) Through thick and thin: rationalizing the public bioethical debate over therapeutic cloning. Clinical Ethics 3: 194–198.
    Jensen E (2008b) The Dao of human cloning: hope, fear and hype in the UK press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science 17: 123–143.
    Jensen E (2009) Review: human cloning in the media. Public Understanding of Science 18: 373–374.
    Jensen E (in press-a) Between credulity and scepticism: sightings of the fourth estate in 21st century science journalism. Media, Culture & Society.
    book Jensen E (in press-b) "Scientific controversies and the struggle for symbolic power". In: Wagoner B, Jensen E and Oldmeadow J (eds) Culture and Social Change: Transforming Society Through the Power of Ideas. London: Information Age.
    Jensen E and Wagoner B (2009) A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology 15: 217–228.
    Jensen E and Weasel LH (2006) Abortion rhetoric in American news coverage of human cloning. New Genetics and Society 25: 305–324.
    Kiernan V (2003) Embargoes and science news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80: 903–920.
    Machill M, Beiler M and Schmutz J (2006) The influence of video news releases on the topics reported in science journalism. Journalism Studies 7: 869–888.
    Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Wilkins L and Zakharova L (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science 16: 183–203.
    McCombs ME and Shaw DL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–187.
    book Nelkin D (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
    Stryker JE (2002) Reporting medical information: effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles’ visibility in the news media. Preventative Medicine 35: 519–530.
    Weasel LH and Jensen E (2005) Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and Christian fundamentalist pastors. New Genetics and Society 24: 1–14.
    book Wilsdon J and Willis R (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS.
 Further Reading
    book Bucchi M (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. London, UK: Routledge.
    book Friedman SM, Dunwoody S and Rogers CL (eds) (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.
    book Jensen E and Holliman R (2009) "Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement". In: Holliman R, Whitelegg L, Scanlon E, Smidt S and Thomas J (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media, pp. 55–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    book Turney J (1998) Frankenstein's Footsteps. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    other UK Parliament (2000) Science and Society. House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology, Third Report.
 Web Links
    ePath Informing Science Outreach and Public Engagement (ISOTOPE) Website: http://isotope.open.ac.uk
    ePath Royal Society and the Royal Institution ‘Guidelines on science and health communication’ for science reporters http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news/guidelines.htm
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Jensen, Eric(Dec 2009) Genetic Futures and the Media. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005863.pub2]