Managing the boundaries between maverick cloners and mainstream scientists: the life cycle of a news event in a contested field

Abstract

In January 2004, the ‘maverick cloner’, Dr Panos Zavos called a press conference in London to announce that he had implanted a freshly cloned human embryo in the womb of an infertile woman. Reports of this press conference gained prominent coverage in the national newspapers the following day and led television bulletins that evening. This article discusses the ways in which expertise was claimed by or attributed to Dr Zavos and other key media sources. It argues that three key boundaries were demarcated in the coverage as journalists framed the stories in terms provided by Zavos's antagonists, ‘mainstream scientists’. It also discusses the engagement in tactics of news management by an organised grouping of UK scientists who attempted to shape the terrain of news coverage on the subject of cloning. The question of the extent to which interested scientists should be able to set the terms of media debate is explored.     

Anatomy of a media event: how arguments clashed in the 2001 human cloning debate

This paper studies the distinctive role that staged media events play in the public understanding of genetics: they can focus the attention of the media, scientists and the public on the risks and benefits of genetic advances, in our case, cloning; they can accelerate policy changes by exposing scientific, legal and ethical uncertainties; the use of images, metaphors, cliches, and cultural narratives by scientists and the media engaged in this event can reinforce stereotypical representations of cloning, but can also expose fundamental clashes in arguments about cloning. The media event staged by two fertility experts in 2001 is here analysed as a case study.     

The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists

Scientists are dedicating more attention to replication efforts. While the scientific utility of replications is unquestionable, the impact of failed replication efforts and the discussions surrounding them deserve more attention. Specifically, the debates about failed replications on social media have led to worry, in some scientists, regarding reputation. In order to gain data-informed insights into these issues, we collected data from 281 published scientists. We assessed whether scientists overestimate the negative reputational effects of a failed replication in a scenario-based study. Second, we assessed the reputational consequences of admitting wrongness (versus not) as an original scientist of an effect that has failed to replicate. Our data suggests that scientists overestimate the negative reputational impact of a hypothetical failed replication effort. We also show that admitting wrongness about a non-replicated finding is less harmful to one’s reputation than not admitting. Finally, we discovered a hint of evidence that feelings about the replication movement can be affected by whether replication efforts are aimed one’s own work versus the work of another. Given these findings, we then present potential ways forward in these discussions.     

Cloning humans, cloning literature: genetics and the imagination deficit

After the birth of Dolly, media stories on cloning were replete with references to well-known science fiction plots. This essay criticizes the 'imagination deficit' of scientists and journalists, first by problematizing the uncritical adoption of attentuated science fiction plots in the media coverage of Dolly, and second, by proposing to look at more expansive science fiction novels that carefully examine issues such as uniqueness and identity in relation to the new genetics.     

Attitudes in China about Crops and Foods Developed by Biotechnology

Transgenic Bt cotton has been planted in China since 1997 and, in 2009, biosafety certificates for the commercial production of Bt rice and phytase corn were issued by the Chinese government. The public attitude in China toward agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops and foods has received considerable attention worldwide. We investigated the attitudes of consumers, Bt cotton farmers and scientists in China regarding GM crops and foods and the factors influencing their attitudes. Data were collected using interview surveys of consumer households, farmer households and scientists. A discrete choice approach was used to elicit the purchase intentions of the respondents. Two separate probit models were developed to examine the effect of various factors on the choices of the respondents. Bt cotton farmers had a very positive attitude because Bt cotton provided them with significant economic benefits. Chinese consumers from developed regions had a higher acceptance and willingness to pay for GM foods than consumers in other regions. The positive attitude toward GM foods by the scientific community will help to promote biotechnology in China in the future. Our survey emphasized that educational efforts made by government officials, the media and scientists can facilitate the acceptance of GM technology in China. Further educational efforts will be critical for influencing consumer attitudes and decisions of government agencies in the future. More effective educational efforts by government agencies and public media concerning the scientific facts and safety of GM foods would enhance the acceptance of GM crops in China.     

The how and why of societal publications for citizen science projects and scientists

In the scientific community, the importance of communication to society is often underestimated. Scientists and scientific organisations often lack the skills to organise such communication effectively. The Dutch citizen science phenology network Nature’s Calendar has been successful in communicating to the general public via numerous newspaper articles, television appearances, presentations, websites and social media. We refer to these publications as societal publications. Due to active communication to mass media, we frequently reach millions of people. This communication helped us to involve thousands of volunteers in recording the timing of phenological events like the start of flowering, leaf unfolding and bird migration, but also several health-related events like hay fever symptoms and tick bites. In this paper, we analyse and present our experiences with the Nature’s Calendar project regarding societal publications. Based on this analysis, we explain the importance of societal publications for citizen science projects and scientists in general, and we show how scientists can increase the newsworthiness of scientific information and what factors and activities can increase the chances of media paying attention to this news. We show that societal publications help phenological networks by facilitating the recruitment, retention and instruction of observers. Furthermore, they stimulate the generation of new ideas and partners that lead to an increase in knowledge, awareness and behavioural change of the general public or specific stakeholders. They make projects, and scientists involved, better known to the public and increase their credibility and authority. Societal publications can catalyse the production of new publications, thereby enforcing the previous mentioned points.     

Best practices in cell culture: an overview

This overview describes a series of articles to provide an unmet need for information on best practices in animal cell culture. The target audience primarily consists of entry-level scientists with minimal experience in cell culture. It also include scientists, journalists, and educators with some experience in cell culture, but in need of a refresher in best practices. The articles will be published in this journal over a six-month period and will emphasize best practices in: (1) media selection; (2) use and evaluation of animal serum as a component of cell culture medium; (3) receipt of new cells into the laboratory; (4) naming cell lines; (5) authenticating cell line identity; (6) detecting and mitigating risk of cell culture contamination; (7) cryopreservation and thawing of cells; and (8) storing and shipping viable cells.     

Cloning humans,cloning literature: genetics and the imagination deficit

Abstract

After the birth of Dolly, media stories on cloning were replete with references to well-known science fiction plots. This essay criticizes the ‘imagination deficit’ of scientists and journalists, first by problematizing the uncritical adoption of attenuated science fiction plots in the media coverage of Dolly, and second, by proposing to look at more expansive science fiction novels that carefully examine issues such as uniqueness and identity in relation to the new genetics.     

A public policy on biotechnology education: what might be relevant and effective?

The public perception of the life sciences--including biotechnology--has in recent years drifted far from the reality. Bringing perception and reality closer together requires an open dialogue between science and society based upon a well thought-out educational policy and a better mutual understanding between scientists and media professionals.     

On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate

In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.     

The monarch butterfly controversy: scientific interpretations of a phenomenon

The future development and use of agricultural biotechnology has been challenged by two preliminary studies indicating potential risk to monarch butterfly populations by pollen from corn engineered to express proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Likewise, these studies have also challenged the way in which science should be performed, published in scientific journals and communicated to the public at large. Herein, we provide a history of the monarch controversy to date. We believe a retrospective view may be useful for providing insights into the proper roles and responsibilities of scientists, the media and public agencies and the consequences when they go awry.     

Genes in food--why the furore?

Although unprecedented and perhaps unique in its irrationality, the recent furore over genetically modified (GM) food holds extremely important lessons for scientists. Some sections of the media undoubtedly bear a heavy responsibility for giving the expression 'GM' threatening connotations that are quite unwarranted. However, influential contributions to the hysteria have come from a surprising range of other sources, including some scientists. The research community has failed in its responsibility to society in three ways. Firstly, plant scientists did not appreciate that certain techniques (such as the use of antibiotic resistance genes as markers during plant transformation) would inevitably provoke public consternation. As a result, they took no steps to address such concerns. Secondly, researchers overlooked, minimized or in some cases simply dismissed the significance of public fears that they were 'interfering with Nature' or 'playing God'. Thirdly, plant breeders apparently saw no need to take pro-active measures with regard to the media and public in placing potential environmental and nutritional benefits of GM crops on the agenda in a positive fashion. Partly because of this failure, GM food is now firmly established in the public mind as wholly objectionable. One measure of how far we have travelled down that road is that it hardly matters any more whether objections are based on alleged environmental risks of cultivating GM crops or alleged toxicological hazards of eating them. 'Genetically modified organism', like 'radioactivity', has become an odious, generic shibboleth. Given that millions of people throughout the world are already benefiting from pharmaceuticals made by GM organisms, this is bizarre.     

Ancestor or Adapiform? Darwinius and the Search for Our Early Primate Ancestors

On May 19, 2009, an international team of scientists claimed to have found one of our early primate ancestors. Dubbed Darwinius masillae, the 47 million-year-old primate was presented as “the link” that bridged a gap between early primates and our anthropoid progenitors through a major media campaign, yet details about the way the fossil was acquired, the role media companies played in the presentation of the fossil, and disagreements about the fossil’s interpretation generated a controversy in which scientists, journalists, and science bloggers all played important roles. These debates were reinvigorated in the fall of 2009 when an independent team of researchers described a related fossil primate named Afradapis longicristatus, the study of which suggested that Darwinius was much further removed from our ancestry than had been initially proposed. The discussion of these fossils will no doubt continue, but the “Darwinius debates” of 2009 are significant in that they precipitated a long-awaited analysis of early primate relationships, illustrated the benefits and pitfalls of “going broad” with new discoveries, and exhibited how science blogs can work with traditional media outlets to counter exaggerated claims.     

Basic problems of diversely reported biological effects of radio frequency fields

The large differences in RF safety standards are due to different philosophical approaches to public health standards development, different scientific approaches and interpretations of the scientific data, and different jurisdictions in various countries. In this paper, the origin of these differences is explored. The emphases are on the basic problems of why reported biological effects of RF fields are controversial, and how the general public can be misinformed. While there are differences in approaches and methods, science should converge and not diverge in finding the threshold level for exposure to EMF that is not adverse to human health. As the progress in technology continues and human beings are enjoying an increased quality of life, it is essential for scientists to ensure that safety is not compromised. More importantly, it is the responsibility and moral obligation of scientists and the media to bring "verified" information to the public. Scientists must conduct well-designed studies and to report the results in a clear and detailed manner, so other independent investigators can repeat the study or explore further. Mistakes must be minimized and stopped at the first level of scientific research.     

Cartoons on bacterial balloons: scientists’ opinion on the popularization of synthetic biology

How do scientists perceive the media coverage of synthetic biology (SB)? In this paper, we approach this question by studying a set of cartoons devoted to SB. Based on a categorization of the cartoons into five large thematic groups an international survey was carried out to assess the opinion of SB research groups on science communication with regard to the public image of their discipline. The 101 responses obtained indicate that in general, their perception of the communication is not negative, although many respondents raised concerns on the media’s inclination to sensationalism and over-simplification. However, the results also suggest that (in the light of the unfortunate experiences with GMO communication) scientists should think twice before proposing metaphorical interpretations of their research.     

The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?

The idea that science is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture, particularly in literature, yet science provides the best way of understanding the world. Science is not the same as technology. In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Scientists are not responsible for the technological applications of science; the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. The obligation of scientists is to make public both any social implications of their work and its technological applications. A rare case of immoral science was eugenics. The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into genetic pornography, but neither cloning nor stem cells or gene therapy raise new ethical issues. There are no areas of research that are so socially sensitive that research into them should be proscribed. We have to rely on the many institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous press, affected groups and the scientists themselves. That is why programmes for the public understanding of science are so important. Alas, we still do not know how best to do this.     

Are social media reports useful for assessing small ape occurrence? A pilot study from Peninsular Malaysia

Citizen science-based research has been used effectively to estimate animal abundance and breeding patterns, to monitor animal movement, and for biodiversity conservation and education. Here, we evaluate the feasibility of using social media observations to assess the distribution of small apes in Peninsular Malaysia. We searched for reports of small ape observations in Peninsular Malaysia on social media (e.g., blogs, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, iNaturalist, etc.), and also used online, radio, print messaging, and word of mouth to invite citizen scientists such as birders, amateur naturalists, hikers, and other members of the public to provide information about small ape observations made during their activities. These reports provided new information about the occurrence of all three species of small apes (Hylobates agilis, Hylobates lar, and Symphalangus syndactylus) in Peninsular Malaysia. Social media users reported observations of small apes in almost every state. Despite the fact that small apes are believed to occur primarily in the interior of large forested areas, most observations were from fairly small (<100 km²) forests near areas of high traffic and high human population (roads and urban areas). This suggests that most outdoor enthusiasts primarily visit well-traveled and easily accessible areas, which results in biased sampling if only incidental observations reported on social media are used. A more targeted approach specifically soliciting reports from citizen scientists visiting large, less-accessible forests may result in better sampling in these habitats. Social media reports indicated the presence of small apes in at least six habitats where they had not been previously reported. We verified the reported data based on whether reports included a date, location, and uploaded photographs, videos and/or audio recordings. Well-publicized citizen science programs may also build awareness and enthusiasm about the conservation of vulnerable wildlife species.     

The World is a Natural Laboratory,and Social Media is the New Petri Dish

Many high‐priority and high‐interest species are challenging to study due to the difficulty in accessing animals and/or obtaining sufficient sample sizes. The recent explosion in technology, particularly social media and live webcams available on the Internet, provides new opportunities for behavioral scientists to collect data not just on our own species, as well as new resources for teaching and outreach. We discuss here the possibility of exploiting online media as a new source of behavioral data, which we termed ‘video mining’. This article proposes epidemiological and ethological field techniques to gather and screen online media as a data source on diverse taxa. This novel method provides access to a rich source of untapped knowledge, particularly to study the behavior of understudied species or sporadic behaviors, but also for teaching or monitoring animals in challenging settings.     

Pictures of Synthetic Biology

This article is concerned with the representation of Synthetic Biology in the media and by biotechnology experts. An analysis was made of German-language media articles published between 2004 and 2008, and interviews with biotechnology-experts at the Synthetic Biology conference SB 3.0 in Zurich 2007. The results have been reflected in terms of the definition of Synthetic Biology, applications of Synthetic Biology and the perspectives of opportunities and risks. In the media, Synthetic Biology is represented as a new scientific field of biology with an engineering-like thinking, while the scientists interviewed mostly define Synthetic Biology as contrary to nature and the natural system. Media articles present Synthetic Biology broadly with positive potential and inform the publics less about the potential risks than about the benefits of Synthetic Biology. In contrast, the experts interviewed reflect more on the risks than the opportunities of Synthetic Biology. Both used metaphors to describe Synthetic Biology and its aspects.