Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis

Abstract

Whether biotechnology is one or several developments is not clear. Once distinctions are required, the question is: Which one prevails? When the good, the bad, and the ugly settle, where do they fall? Evaluation implies distinction, and representation drives attitude. The controversies over biotechnology are fertile ground on which to study these issues. The imports of genetically modified (GM) soya into Europe in 1996-97 and the cloning of Dolly the sheep from adult cells in 1997 changed the symbolic environment for genetic engineering. The ensuing public controversies came to focus mainly on field trials of GM crops and food labeling. This paper will explore the relationship between quality press coverage and public perception, in particular the cultivation of the contrast between “desirable” biomedical (RED) and “undesirable” agri-food (GREEN) biotechnology in Britain. The argument draws on a systematic analysis of the British press coverage of biotechnology from 1973 to 1999 and analysis of public perceptions in 1996 and 1999. The paper concludes that the debate over GM crops and food ingredients fostered the RED-GREEN contrast among the newspaper-reading public, thereby shielding RED biotechnology from public controversy, and ushered in a realignment of the regulatory framework in 2000.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

P. Berg et al. , “Potential biohazard of recombinant DNA molecules,” Science 185 (1984): 303.

See J. Durant and N. Lindsey , “The `great GM food debate'—a survey of media coverage in the first half of 1999,” London, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Report 138, May 2000.

P. Simmons and S. Weldon , “The GM food controversy in Britain: actors, arenas and institutional change,” Politeia, 16 (2000): 1128-1141.

G. Gaskell M. W. Bauer , J. Durant , et al,.

(1997) “Europe ambivalent on biotechnology,”

Nature 387 (1997): 345-347.

This notion is elaborated by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell , “The biotechnology movement,” in Biotechnology—The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 379-400.

See Ernst and Young , Life Science Group , Integration, the 8th Annual European Life Sciences Report (Cambridge: 2001). The authors report market capitalization as an opportunity and regulation and public perception as constraints to the development of biotechnology.

Here I follow Fritz Neidhardt, “The public as a communication system,” Public Understanding of Science 2 (1993): 339-350.

S. Jasanoff , “Product, process or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology,” in Resistance to New Technology—Nuclear Power, Information Technology, Biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer (Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 311.

See Bauer et al. , “United Kingdom,” in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere—a European Sourcebook, 162-176.

10.

See Jasanoff , “Product, process, or programme”; and Robert Bud, “Biotechnology in the 20th century,” Social Studies of Science 21 (1991): 415-457.

11.

Leaving aside the metaphysical possibility of unity-in-diversity and the issue of levels of analysis, unity on one level may comprise heterogeneity on another level. Equally we leave unexplored the distinction between microbial, plant, animal, or human biotechnology that had currency at the beginning of the 1990s, and which for example was the basis of the questions in the Eurobarometer surveys of 1991 and 1993.

12.

See C. Plein , “Popularizing biotechnology: the influence of issue definition,” Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 474-490.

13.

See the annual Ernst and Young reports on the Life Sciences, previously called “Biotechnology” (1996), “Life Sciences” (1998) or “Evolution” (2000). See also the article in Neue Zurcher Zeitung (2002) 16/17 February, no 39, p33, where Uwe J. Wenzel explores the range of present and historical associations of this Public Relations term in the German context.

14.

M. Morgan and J. Shanahan , “Two decades of cultivation research: an appraisal and meta-analysis,” Communication Yearbook 20 (1996): 1-45.

15.

M. Hughes , “The fruits of cultivation analysis: a reexamination of some effects of television watching,” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (1980): 287-302, pointed out that mass media coverage need not necessarily be distorting.

16.

See World Association of Newspapers (2001), The World Press Trends 2000. Paris.

17.

See M. W. Bauer , “Science in the media as cultural indicator: contextualising surveys with media analysis,” in Between Understanding and Trust—The Public, Science and Technology, ed. M. Dierkes and C von Grote (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000), 157-178.

18.

See S. Siegel and N. J. Castellan , Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988).

19.

See M. Morgan and J. Shanahan in note 14. They report a meta-analysis of 52 cultivation studies and conclude with an average cultivation effect of r = 0.091.

20.

For a summary of the issues for RED biotechnology and genome research, see H. T. Greely , “Legal, ethical and social issues in human genome research,” Annual Review of Anthropology 27 (1998): 473-502.

21.

or J. Gutteling et al. , “Media coverage 1973-1996: trends and dynamics,” in Biotechnology—The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 95-128.

22.

See Gaskell et al. , “United Kingdom: spilling the beans on genes,” in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, pp. 292-306.

23.

RED and GREEN clearly have a different environment in Britain. RED: The British government rushed through liberal legislation on stem cell cloning before the end of 2000, which, challenged in court, got final clearance in February 2002. Equally, the genetic data base project Biobank UK is going ahead at the end of 2002; some genetic tests are being used for high-value insurance policies, while for general use a five-year moratorium has been agreed on by the industry. The British part of the genome project continues its advocacy of a free-access gene sequence database. The conflicts over gene patents are confined to experts and courts. GREEN: By contrast, GM crop farm trials are subject to street protests, and the de facto moratorium on GM foods continues, recently reinforced by a Royal Society Report in February 2002, which reiterates concerns about safety issues of GM foods and lack of transparency of the “substantive equivalence” testing criterion.

24.

For evidence of such an attitude to public opinion, see Ernst and Young (2001) in note 6.

25.

and Bauer and Gaskell , Biotechnology (all cited in note 4).