Imagining GMOs: The Chinese public's scientific perception in the digital age

Abstract

This exploratory study, which is based on the basic concepts of science communication, conducted in-depth interviews to examine the Chinese public's perceptions of and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We found that, while scientific knowledge may to some extent be a differentiating factor in attitudes to GMOs, people are subject to significant influence from other information sources. Besides scientific knowledge and scientific literacy, the perception of risks in three dimensions—scientific uncertainty, food safety and conspiracy theories—forms an individual's affective framework for understanding GMOs. The trust framework, which is the regulating mechanism of perception and attitude, plays different roles through institutional trust and interpersonal trust. These tentative conclusions shed new light on how science communication should build the relationship between science and the public in the age of globalization and digitalization.

Keywords

Cognition attitude perceived risk institutional trust interpersonal trust

1. Research background: How scientific communication creates an informed public

Science communication is broadly defined as the use of appropriate skills, media, activities and dialogue to produce one or more personal responses to science: awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-forming and understanding (Burns et al., 2003). The goal of science communication is not just to promote science but also to create an informed public that is aware of the implications, limits and power of science as applied to human affairs (Metcalfe and Gascoigne, 1995). Many believe that social controversies over science are rooted in ignorance, that scientific facts speak for themselves, and that—as long as members of the public are informed of scientific knowledge—they should be able to think about and view scientific issues just as scientists do; if they refuse to accept scientific facts, then scientific journalism, the irrationality of the public, or both, are to blame (Bauer et al., 2007; Nisbet and Goidel, 2007; Bauer, 2008).

However, there is an increasing realization among researchers that scientific literacy plays a very limited role in shaping the public's perception of science and influencing its science-related decisions (Allum et al., 2008) and that orientations—including values, ideology, political affiliation and religious faith—play a more important role (Nisbet, 2005; Ho et al., 2008; Scheufele et al., 2009). Therefore, science communication efforts need to be based on a systematic, empirical understanding of an intended audience's values, knowledge and attitudes, its interpersonal and social contexts and its preferred media sources and communication channels (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009).

Even from the perspective of pure science communication, people vary significantly in their psychological attitudes towards scientific issues (Metag and Schäfer, 2018), and researchers have found that audiences in different groups vary greatly in their access to science communication resources:

•
‘Sciencephiles’, who have a strong interest in science, an extensive knowledge of it and a pronounced belief in its potential, use a variety of sources intensively.
•
‘Critically interested’ people, who also have a strong interest in science and tend to support it but place less trust in it, use similar sources but have a more cautious attitude to science.
•
‘Passive supporters’, who have moderate levels of interest and trust in science and moderate knowledge and tempered perceptions of it, use fewer sources.
•
‘Disengaged’ people pay little attention to science (Schäfer et al., 2018).

There are also arguments that social reproduction in science communication constructs a narrow public that reflects the shape, values and practices of dominant groups at the expense of the marginalized (Dawson, 2018) and that, in many underdeveloped countries, particularly in rural areas, ‘science is everywhere, but no one knows it’ (Guenther et al., 2018).

In the age of digital media, science communication faces even more challenges. Driven by new technologies, a new system of science communication has emerged. It has more participants and open interaction, which spreads scientific knowledge as well as information that may be wrong, false or misleading (Lu and Zhou, 2015). The credibility and reliability of information are central to the public understanding of science. In the age of traditional media, the authoritative sources and the credibility of the mass media played a foundational role in the credibility and reliability of scientific information.

However, in today's media environment, which is characterized by the declining authority of scientific culture and the potential risks involved in scientists’ direct communication with the public through social media, science communication may be entering a ‘post-truth’ phase. The greater visibility of scientific results is accompanied by an increasing risk that rushed conclusions and even fraudulent content will be pushed into public discussion (Bucchi, 2017). At the same time, strong differences in perceptions of science between different segments of the public have been shown to relate to demographics, specific scientific knowledge, attention to media, attitudes towards media, and the use of social network platforms (Runge et al., 2018).

Of course, science communication is not concerned solely with the public's science perceptions and literacy. Since the mid-20th century, the public in the ‘risk society’ (Beck, 2004) has been aware of the potential destructiveness of science. A wide range of concerns has included the threat of nuclear war, the ecological consequences of the misuse of antibiotics and pesticides and the spread of AIDS. This has damaged the public's optimism about science and led to rising distrust of and scepticism about science (Bella et al., 1998). The intertwining of highbrow scientific issues and political, societal, ethical and risk issues in the age of globalization has given rise to disputes and even social movements, including the ‘Not in My Back Yard’ movement (Bauer and Bucchi, 2007). The disputes have centred mainly on five major questions: healthcare, public health, food safety, the environment and energy. Among them is the controversy over genetically modified (GM) food.

Genetic modification technology involves multiple fields, including public health, food safety and environmental security. It is intrinsically complex, which creates differences of opinion about its risks and even conflict between the public and the scientific community (Covello and Sandman, 2001). Moreover, its rapid advance from laboratory research to industrial application has been subject to the influence of political and commercial considerations.

Because the dispute about genetic modification has generated heated discussion about things far removed from the scientific issues, misunderstanding of and rumours about it have turned into a ‘human panic’ (Yuan, 2014). An in-depth exploration of this issue may offer an interesting case study of science communication and shed new light on how science communicators should build the relationship between science and the public in the age of globalization and digitalization.
2. The Chinese public's perception of and attitude towards GMOs: The questions and methodology of an exploratory study

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have had their genetic material altered using genetic engineering techniques to improve their properties. For some researchers, the primary reason that GMOs have so far been rejected by a significant portion of the public, despite their safety being universally recognized by the scientific community, is a failure of science communication.

According to a previous survey of representative papers on GMOs indexed by Social Sciences Citation Index over the past 20 years, the commercialization of GMOs in the mid-1990s was the key to the intensification of anti-GMO sentiment. A series of factors, including the scientific community's neglect of public concern about the risks of GMOs, negative views in the popular media, the limited role of scientific knowledge in shaping public perceptions and a lack of trust in public institutions, combined to trigger the rapid rise of an anti-GMO movement promoted by diverse groups in Europe (including anti-globalization activists, environmentalists, civic organizations and commercial stakeholders such as organic farmers and organic food retailers). Even in the United States, where neither mainstream environmental organizations nor the media had treated GMOs as a major issue, there was still a remarkably hostile media effect. Therefore, it is difficult to use traditional science communication, which relies on the communication of information, to change the public perception of the GMO dispute, which is stuck in the framework of risk, uncertainty and ethics (Jia and Fan, 2015).

Even though some have reached optimistic conclusions about increasing public knowledge and acceptance of GMOs (Xiong et al., 2014), the promotion of genetic engineering technology and GMO products has always been met with resistance from the public in China. Besides China's traditional cultural emphasis on nature and obsession with traditional agriculture (Fan et al., 2013), the GMO dispute that features prominently in the landscape of science and technology risks (Zeng and Dai, 2015) also relates to uncertainty over new technology and the resulting potential risks.

After safety certificates were issued by China's Ministry of Agriculture for two GM rice varieties developed by Huazhong Agricultural University in 2009, the Chinese public's misgivings about GMOs were intensified by the proposal of GM staple food in 2010 and the ‘golden rice’ incident in Hunan in 2012; the dispute was significantly amplified by the debate between internet celebrities Fang Zhouzi and famous former TV host Cui Yongyuan in 2013. A series of factors, including the uneven distribution of topics in popular media, imbalanced discourse on them and the crisis of trust in scientists, fuelled the vicious cycle of the dispute (Chen, 2014).

The decentralization and recentralization of social media, as well as social media's anti-establishment tendency, have facilitated public participation but failed to effectively promote in-depth communication about the underlying scientific issues and the continuous attention required for prudent decision-making, while simultaneously dissolving the elitist authority of science (Jia et al., 2014).

Interpersonal communication has increased the Chinese public's perception of the risks of GMOs, while internet technology not only undermines the effectiveness of science communication in popular media but also becomes a social and technology platform magnifying science risks (Cui and Ma, 2013). One example is the significant overrepresentation of content about the health risks of GMOs in internet videos about them, which substantially undermined the progress framework of science (Wu and Wang, 2017).

The above literature review provides a rough survey of the many factors contributing to the Chinese public's anxiety about GMOs, including irrational, unscientific media reports (Chen, 2014), differences among the scientific community, the media and the public in their understanding of the uncertainty of science (Liu and Qi, 2017), lack of social trust (Zeng and Dai, 2015) and low levels of scientist participation in science popularization (Jin et al., 2018). The existing literature on individual thinking about GMOs showed that scientific uncertainty, if put into the appropriate preventive framework, can play a positive role in reducing misunderstanding (Liu and Qi, 2017), but empirical research on this subject has been very limited.

Therefore, as an exploratory study, we surveyed science communication on mobile internet devices to examine how the Chinese public perceives GMO technology, aiming to not only provide a reference point for the promotion of transgenic technology but also to lay foundations for a new understanding of how science communication builds the relationship between science and the public in the digital age.

Specifically, this study examines how individual members of the public see GMOs in two interrelated dimensions: perception and attitude. Perception is a basic mental process through which a person obtains or employs knowledge. The public perception of GMOs includes how people perceive and understand GMOs and the concepts, judgments and images that appear in people's mind when they process external information about GMOs. People's attitudes towards GMOs encompass their views, opinions and behavioural tendencies based on their perception of GMOs. This involves not only their scientific literacy but also their values and how science communication works in the process. Regarding the GMO dispute, this study attempts to examine the differences between people with a positive attitude towards GMOs (‘GMO supporters’), people with a neutral attitude (‘GMO neutrals’) and people with misgivings about them (‘GMO opponents’) and the factors that influence their attitudes.

This exploratory research is based on in-depth interviews that we conducted in Shanghai, Xining (Qinghai Province), Jinhua (Zhejiang Province), Nanjing (Jiangsu Province) and Zhanjiang (Guangdong Province) from June to September 2017. Those locations were selected to produce a diverse representation and for convenience. Each interview lasted 50–90 minutes. The interviewees were acquired through the snowball method, and the interviews were semi-structured. We determined the interview framework and basic questions based on a literature review and focus-group interviews, and interviewers made spontaneous decisions according to their interactions with interviewees.

We collected valid responses from 51 participants (see Table 1), of whom 45% were female and most of whom were fairly young and well educated. GMO supporters (clearly supporting transgenic technology and GM crops and food), GMO neutrals (neither clearly supporting nor expressly opposing and avoiding transgenic technology and GM products) and GMO opponents (expressly opposing, rejecting and avoiding GM crops and food) accounted for approximately 24%, 29% and 47% of respondents, respectively.

Table 1
Summary of semi-structured in-depth interviews

Although the sample collected by the snowball method was limited, we still managed to collect fairly rich first-hand material, thereby laying foundations for subsequent research.

3. Imagining GMOs: Research findings on the Chinese public's perceptions of and attitudes toward GMOs

Among the 23 female participants, 15 were GMO opponents and three were supporters; the numbers of male supporters, neutrals and opponents were 9, 10 and 9, respectively. Among the 12 supporters, 10 were under 29 years old, one was between 30 and 50 years old, and one was over 50 years old. The attitudes of respondents with six kinds of academic backgrounds showed certain differences (see Table 2).

Table 2
Profiles of GMO supporters, neutrals, and opponents in the sample

GMO supporters GMO neutrals GMO opponents

Gender Female 3 5 15

Male 9 10 9

Age Below 29 10 8 12

30–39 1 3 5

40–49 0 3 5

Over 50 1 1 2

Major Humanities 0 1 5

Social sciences 3 9 8

Sciences 0 0 1

Engineering 6 4 8

Medicine 3 1 1

Other 0 0 1

		GMO supporters	GMO neutrals	GMO opponents
Gender	Female	3	5	15
	Male	9	10	9
Age	Below 29	10	8	12
	30–39	1	3	5
	40–49	0	3	5
	Over 50	1	1	2
Major	Humanities	0	1	5
	Social sciences	3	9	8
	Sciences	0	0	1
	Engineering	6	4	8
	Medicine	3	1	1
	Other	0	0	1

3.1 Research finding 1: Perception of GMOs in a motley pool of information

Scholars previously conducted an in-depth investigation into more specific issues under the framework of the risk society theory of Ulrich Beck (2004), reaching the important conclusion that there is no significant consistency between the actual and perceived risk of an event (Covello and Sandman, 2001). While a technology's actual technical risk is a physical, tangible and measurable risk, people's perception of risk is mentally constructed (Stevens, 2008).

As far as transgenic technology is concerned, although the safety of GMOs is universally recognized in the scientific community from the perspective of technical risk (Jia and Fan, 2015), its perceived risk has long been lodged in people's minds. To investigate the underlying perception of risk, our in-depth interviews started with what the interviewees knew about GMOs and where they acquired such information.

The interviews showed that, overall, GMO supporters had a certain base of scientific knowledge underlying their support for GMOs. When asked, ‘What do you think genetic modification is?’, most gave confident answers explaining the underlying scientific specifics:

Genetic modification is a technique for transferring a piece of DNA from one organism to a different organism. For example, scientists, seeing that cobwebs are adhesive, may try to transfer the corresponding DNA from spiders that contributes to the adhesive property to silkworms, so that they will produce silk with this property. If a laboratory experiment is successful, it can be put into application. (E15, Appendix)

When asked the same question (‘What do you think genetic modification is?’), most GMO opponents, while trying to summarize its scientific basis, could not come up with coherent answers and tended to make little or unconfident use of scientific terms:

Genetic modification is something done to organisms or plants against their natural laws of growth with a view to producing relevant products or food. Literally, it is about transforming DNA, about extracting pieces of DNA from things like molecules of organisms and artificially synthesizing them for cultivation. (C7, Appendix)

Some GMO opponents answered the question without reference to any scientific knowledge and directly showed their attitude:

What is genetic modification? I think it is nothing good. (C3, Appendix)

Many things that I grew up with have become very different from how I remember them, with different shapes and tastes. I believe such things have been genetically modified. (E4, Appendix)

To investigate what external information influenced interviewees’ answers to this question, they were asked, ‘From what sources did you acquire your knowledge about genetic modification?’ Most GMO supporters derived their knowledge from school education and other specialized information sources they accessed on their own initiative:

I learned a little about genetic modification in high school and then became better informed through online media reports and popular science works about the technology. (B3, Appendix)

I recently read the book A Rational Look at GMOs, which was published by the Ministry of Agriculture and is a recommended read for the public. (D13, Appendix)

Among the interviewees, GMO opponents derived their information about GMOs from a wide variety of sources, including celebrities, popular media, mobile social networks, and acquaintances:

I picked up what I know about GMOs from different sources, including a GMO documentary produced by the former TV host Cui Yongyuan, WeChat articles, discussions on the knowledge-sharing site Zhihu, and discussions with my friends. (C1, Appendix)

I read articles about GMOs in some magazines, and GMOs were often a dinner table topic with family relatives when I was at home. (D2, Appendix)

The first time I became aware of GMOs was when I was about to eat cherry tomatoes. I was warned by my classmate not to eat them because, according to her, I would risk becoming infertile. (E4, Appendix)

It can be seen from the GMO supporters’ responses that scientific knowledge can help narrow the gap between actual risk and perceived risk. However, GMO opponents often lack scientific knowledge, and their responses show that risk perception based on uncritically accepting false information leads to the social amplification of risk (Kasperson et al., 1988).

Just as previous research has shown, risk perception is a process of the public learning and interpreting risks (Renn et al., 1992). With the wide variety of sources of information in the digital age diluting scientific knowledge, coupled with the point-to-point communication structure of mobile internet, it is possible that some communication nodes will gain a disproportionate influence in shaping people's views. A good example of this is the former CCTV host Cui Yongyuan, who is a vocal opponent of GMOs.

Among the 51 interviewees, 40 mentioned Cui and expressed their opinions about him, and the other 11 did not mention him (see Table 3). Obviously, Cui has been a strong influencer. Whether his views are recognized by the public needs to be examined according to specific situations. Yet it can, at least, be seen that few GMO opponents were critical of Cui, and few GMO supporters spoke positively of him.

Table 3
Interviewees’ opinions on GMO opponent Cui Yongyuan and his views

Positive on Cui Neutral Negative on Cui Unmentioned

GMO supporters 1 2 5 4

GMO neutrals 2 6 6 1

GMO opponents 7 9 2 6

	Positive on Cui	Neutral	Negative on Cui	Unmentioned
GMO supporters	1	2	5	4
GMO neutrals	2	6	6	1
GMO opponents	7	9	2	6

3.2 Research finding 2: Three dimensions of imagination of GMO risks

As observed in previous studies, minor risks can trigger massive public attention and lead to major social repercussions by way of the social amplification of risk (Kasperson et al., 1988) due to a combination of many factors, including lack of specialized knowledge, conflict of interests, and differences in the frameworks and situations of risk information assessment and interpretation (Edelstein, 1988; Sandman, 2003).

On the issue of GMOs, the social amplification of risk mainly results from the public's imagination of risk. Although research on and industrialization of transgenic technology has made progress in diverse fields, most interviewees, including both GMO supporters and opponents, still focus their attention on GM crops and food, and even equate the technology with GM food.

On the safety of GM crops and food, GMO supporters tended to embrace scientific conclusions rationally based on their scientific knowledge:

I don't think GMOs are dangerous… in the final analysis, DNA and proteins have to be dissolved before being digested. (B3, Appendix)

As long as the transplanted pieces of DNA are not expressed as proteins harmful to the human body, basically, they will do no harm—you will never become what you eat because what you eat will be digested into simpler substances with no harm at all. (D6, Appendix)

GMO opponents generally share a mental image of GM crops and food as dangerous. This image, which is formed on different dimensions and appeals to emotions, plays a role in shaping GMO perceptions and swaying people's attitudes and behaviour towards GMOs.

The first dimension of the imagination of GMO risks is public panic about scientific uncertainty. Genetic scientists are unanimous in believing that public opposition to GMOs stems from ignorance of biology and the impractical demand for absolutely zero risk (Cook et al., 2004). However, scientists and the public differ greatly in their assessment of risk. While scientists describe risks quantitatively and measurably, the public tends to view them qualitatively (McInerney et al., 2004). This kind of imagination was obvious in this study: besides the lack of scientific knowledge, the more direct reason remains public reluctance to accept scientists’ inability to guarantee zero risk and 100% safety of GM crops and food:

As the saying goes, you are what you eat. If I eat GM food, the existing balance built in my body through the eating of natural food might be disrupted, leading to likely consequences like cancer or sudden blindness. (D9, Appendix)

Scientists now claim that there is no evidence that GM food causes more harm to the human body than non-GM food. This statement actually has many traps. Sophistically, they might argue that non-GM food may also cause diarrhoea or that, in fact, non-GM food is also harmful to the human body, but that the harm is imperceptible after thousands of years of adaptation. The way they argue in defence of GM food is not very compelling. (D1, Appendix)

Although some interviewees had a certain amount of scientific knowledge and accepted scientists’ statements that no GM food safety incidents have occurred since the commercialization of GM crops, they still expressed worry about the uncertainty of science itself:

We don't have a complete picture of the implications of genetic modification and whether GM food would harm the human body with, say, increased carcinogenicity. (C1, Appendix)

Meanwhile, scientists just saying that GM crops and food do not have short-term risks is not enough for the public, who are also concerned about the long-term impact of those crops and food:

I fear that the impact might be long term rather than immediate and that it might become apparent only after several years or even decades… Due to this factor, there may be a long chain extending across generations. I fear that eating GM food could have an impact on the next generation, even if it does not affect me. (E14, Appendix)

The second dimension of GMO opponents’ risk image relates to food safety. They are evidently not concerned about GM crops such as cotton, which are not used for food. Their imagined risk of GMOs, together with the resulting panic, mainly arises from their concern about GM food's impact on health:

Unlike things such as computers and mobile networks, GM food has a direct bearing on health. (E8, Appendix)

There are things that, if eaten, could have an irreversible effect on your body. Eating is unlike wearing clothes or using utensils. If bad elements are absorbed by your body, it may be too late to regret eating them. (B8, Appendix)

Another layer of worry about GMOs relates to the shadow left by previous food safety incidents and distrust of the food safety regulator. With reference to previous research on how information processes, social groups’ behaviour, individual reactions, and social trust combine to shape the social experience of risks (Renn et al., 1992), public distrust in food safety spreads to GMOs and is further fuelled by distrust of the establishment (Jia and Fan, 2015).

There have been too many incidents that we should draw lessons from… Food safety is a big problem. Even though the government [the Ministry of Agriculture] has approved these [GM] crops, this is no guarantee that you can eat them worry-free. (E11, Appendix)

Even vaccines can be tampered with, to say nothing of seeds. To maximize profit, those folks can do the same things, if not worse, to GMOs. (E10, Appendix)

The third dimension of GMO opponents’ imagination of GMO risks involves so-called conspiracy theories. Very few GMO opponents express this kind of imagination, which implies their worry about the confrontation between the West and China:

Some people see GMOs as a tool used by Western countries to entrap China. It is not entirely without foundation. If they cannot topple you economically, they could try other methods. Don't you think so? (B2, Appendix)

This kind of imagination also implies misgivings about corporatism:

GM crops, with their many direct or indirect producers and related enterprises, are certainly a huge industry, and I think they wield huge influence as well. (D2, Appendix)

3.3 Research finding 3: The trust mechanism of GMO perception in digital mobile scenarios

With reference to Luhmann's (1979) classification of trust, this study attempted to examine the roles played by institutional trust and interpersonal trust in shaping perceptions of GMOs by examining interviewees’ descriptions of their activities in science communication. Institutional trust refers mainly to trust in public institutions, including government agencies overseeing technologies with potential risks, as well as research institutions, scientific community, and enterprises developing those technologies (Marris, 2001).

We found that, in the point-to-point communication scenarios enabled by mobile internet, it is difficult to establish public trust in the government, the scientific community, institutional media and the popular science community on the specific issue of GMOs. Moreover, negative sentiments towards GMOs are further magnified by the rapid spread of rumours. For example, GMO opponents overall think that institutional media and relevant government watchdogs have failed to provide authoritative information:

Our state media, like CCTV-1, haven't told us clearly what GMOs are. (B8, Appendix)

No national authority, such as the food administration, has ever issued an official statement on this thing. (B2, Appendix)

The scientific community, given its vested interests, is not seen as entirely trustworthy, either:

I used to place a lot of trust and faith in scientists and academics, believing that they know things best and are the most socially responsible. But I have changed my mind and found that they are no different from those money-obsessed celebrities. (D10, Appendix)

Some internet rumours also aggravated public distrust:

A notice issued by a kindergarten affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture was circulated on the internet, claiming that GM food was prohibited for children. (C4, Appendix)

In contrast to the difficulty of developing institutional trust, it is much easier for GMO opponents to develop or demonstrate interpersonal trust on social platforms with point-to-point communication, which has become an important factor in influencing their perception of GMOs:

From time to time, I would receive articles about GMOs forwarded by my family members or friends, like ‘100 GM foods’, which I certainly take as being well-intended advice on health. (B6, Appendix)

I was in China, and my mother was overseas. One day she sent a link to me, and I was instantly convinced by the linked article. (E1, Appendix)

My former classmates are well educated and well informed, and even they spoke with fear about GMOs. (E4, Appendix)

4. Discussion and conclusions

Scientific knowledge and literacy are undoubtedly important factors influencing the perception of and attitudes towards GMOs. However, there is also the public's imagination of GMO risks, due to their distrust of emerging biotechnology, which significantly shapes their emotional framework in perceiving and understanding what GMOs are. This encompasses three dimensions: panic about scientific uncertainty, worry about food safety, and (to a small degree) conspiracy theories. When people are mentally processing various pieces of information, their imagination of GMO risks strengthens their negative judgments of GMOs, and thus some individuals become GMO opponents.

The trust mechanism is a useful regulatory function of the mental processes that shape perceptions and attitudes; however, trust in government, institutional media, the scientific community and the popular science community has been dissolved by a combination of factors, including the wide variety of information sources, experience of previous public health and food safety incidents, vested commercial interests, and the declining reputation of professionals.

We found that good institutional media platforms such as Caixin Weekly and Sanlian Lifeweek Magazine have published high-quality reports on GMOs, and there are also online platforms such as Guokr.com and its column ‘Rumour Crusher’ that have debunked and clarified many rumours about GMOs. However, those examples of high-quality scientific content are just a drop in the ocean of online information, with its myriad point-to-point communications.

Moreover, with connected presence strengthened by digital mobile technologies (Licoppe, 2004), interpersonal trust is another important factor influencing perceptions of and attitudes towards GMOs in science communication. Digital mobile platforms such as WeChat, which enable networks of close relationships among family members and friends, and interactions based on knowledge background and personal attitudes, have significantly shaped individuals’ cognitive framework for understanding transgenic technology. Moreover, influential personalities such as Cui Yongyuan, who are both traditional and internet influencers, also play an important role in the interpersonal trust mechanism.

How to express and face scientific uncertainty is an important subject in understanding the relationship between the scientific community and the public, advancing science communication, promoting social participation, and improving the public's quality of life. The complexity and sensitivity of the GMO issue have increased the difficulty of research. Moreover, the imagination of the risks of emerging science and technology, institutional trust and personal trust are all very complicated ‘umbrella’ concepts. Therefore, this exploratory study can provide only a limited empirical explanation of the subject matter. The concepts used in the study and their significance for science communication in mobile digital scenarios deserve further examination under a more operational and rigorous framework of empirical research. Due to space constraints, this study did not examine discussions with GMO neutrals. This unfinished work will be investigated in subsequent research.

Funding

The study was supported by the Science Popularization and Risk Communication of Transgenic Biotechnologies project (grant ID: 2016ZX08015002).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Chu Yajie and postgraduate students Wang Zhenyu, Xu Tongwen and Luo Shicha at the School of Journalism of Fudan University for their help in advancing the project and collecting research data.

Footnotes

Author biographies

Zijing Xu is a PhD candidate at the School of Journalism of Fudan University. Her research interests are in ICT (information and communications technology) and society, audience studies and science communication.

Ye Lu is a researcher at the Center for Information and Communication Studies and a professor at the School of Journalism of Fudan University. Her research interests are media sociology, audience studies, new technology and everyday life.

Appendix

Personal information of interviewees in this study

No.	Gender	Age	Education	Major	Attitude to GMOs
B2	Male	67	Bachelor's	Economic management	GMO opponent
B3	Male	22	Bachelor's	Materials science and engineering	GMO supporter
B6	Female	46	Bachelor's	Fine art	GMO opponent
B8	Female	45	High school	–	GMO opponent
C1	Male	24	Master's candidate	Information science	GMO opponent
C3	Female	39	Associate degree	Engineering science	GMO opponent
C4	Female	44	Master's	Economics	GMO opponent
C7	Male	46	Master's	History	GMO opponent
D1	Female	25	Master's candidate	Philosophy of science and technology	GMO opponent
D2	Male	23	Master's candidate	Philosophy of science and technology	GMO opponent
D6	Female	23	Master's candidate	Engineering, information science	GMO supporter
D9	Female	27	Bachelor's	Journalism	GMO opponent
D10	Male	25	Bachelor's	Chinese language and culture	GMO opponent
D13	Male	23	Master's candidate	Life science, education	GMO supporter
E1	Female	33	PhD	Mathematics, economics	GMO opponent
E4	Female	41	Bachelor's	Environmental protection	GMO opponent
E8	Female	27	Master's	Transportation	GMO opponent
E10	Female	35	Bachelor's	Accounting	GMO opponent
E11	Female	30	Master's	Editing and publishing	GMO opponent
E14	Female	25	Master's	Environmental engineering	GMO opponent
E15	Male	19	Bachelor's candidate	Clinical medicine	GMO supporter

References

Allum

, Sturgis

, Tabourazi

, and Brunton-Smith

(2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science 17(1): 35–54.

Bauer

, and Bucchi

(2007) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge.

Bauer

(2008) Survey research and the public understanding of science. In: Bucchi

, and Trench

(eds.) Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 111–130.

Bauer

, Allum

, and Miller

(2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.

Beck

(2004) Risk Society (trans. He BW). Nanjing: Yilin Press (in Chinese).

Bella

D.A.

, Mosher

C.D.

, and Calvo

S.N.

(1998) Technocracy and trusts: Nuclear waste controversy. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering 111(1): 21–27.

Bucchi

(2017) Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science 26(8): 890–893

Burns

T.W.

, O'Connor

D.J.

, and Stocklmayer

S.M.

(2003) Science Communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science 12(2): 183–202.

Chen

(2014) Communicating ‘uncertainty’: Topic competition and discourse order in ‘GMO dispute’ communication and knowledge reproduction of the media. Journalism & Communication (7): 17–34 (in Chinese).

10.

Cook

, Pieri

, and Robbins

P.T.

(2004) The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society 15(4): 433–449.

11.

Covello

, and Sandman

P.M.

(2001) Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst

A.B.

(ed.) Solutions to an Environment in Peril. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 164–178.

12.

Cui

, and Ma

Z.H.

(2013) Influence of interpersonal communication on risk perception: A case study on GMOs. Journalism & Communication (9): 5–20 (in Chinese).

13.

Dawson

(2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science 27(7): 772–786.

14.

Edelstein

M.R.

(1988) Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

15.

Fan

J.Q.

, Jia

H.P.

, and Peng

G.M.

(2013) A study on the cultural factors hindering GMO communication. China Biotechnology 6(33): 138–144 (in Chinese).

16.

Guenther

, Weingart

, and Meyer

(2018) 'Science is everywhere, but no one knows it’: Assessing the cultural distance to science of rural South African publics. Environmental Communication 12(8): 1046–1061.

17.

S.S.

, Brossard

, and Scheufele

D.A.

(2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20(2): 171–192.

18.

Jia

H.P.

, and Fan

J.Q.

(2015) Why does the GMO dispute persist: A roundup of science communication studies. Studies on Science Popularization (1): 83–92 (in Chinese).

19.

Jia

H.P.

, Fan

J.Q.

, and Peng

G.M.

(2014) A public participation perspective on the challenge of Weibo to science communication. Studies on Science Popularization 9(2): 10–18 (in Chinese).

20.

Jin

J.B.

, Wu

, Chu

Y.J.

, Lin

C.L.

, and Zhang

(2018) The gap between knowledge and action of scientists’ participation in science communication: From the perspective of value identification and institutional supervision. Journalism & Communication (2): 20–33, 126 (in Chinese).

21.

Kasperson

R.E.

, Renn

, Slovic

, Brown

H.S.

, Emel

, Goble

, Kasperson

J.X.

, and Ratick

(1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8(2): 177–187.

22.

Licoppe

(2004) 'Connected’ presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space 22(1): 135–156.

23.

Liu

Y.S.

, and Qi

(2017) Conveying uncertainty between risks and benefits: Influence of verification of scientific facts on misunderstanding of GMO information. Journalism & Communication (7): 28–49 (in Chinese).

24.

, and Zhou

R.M.

(2015) Science communication oriented to the public: Concepts and principles of practice in the new technology age. Shanghai Journalism Review (5): 4–11 (in Chinese).

25.

Luhmann

(1979) Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

26.

Marris

(2001) Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports 2(7): 545–548.

27.

McInerney

, Bird

, and Nucci

(2004) The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication 26(1): 44–74.

28.

Metag

, and Schäfer

M.S.

(2018) Audience segments in environmental and science communication: Recent findings and future perspectives. Environmental Communication 12(8): 995–1004.

29.

Metcalfe

, and Gascoigne

(1995) Science journalism in Australia. Public Understanding of Science 4(4): 411–428.

30.

Nisbet

M.C.

(2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 90–112.

31.

Nisbet

M.C.

, and Goidel

R.K.

(2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic–survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science 16(4): 421–440.

32.

Nisbet

M.C.

, and Scheufele

D.A.

(2009) What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1767–1778.

33.

Renn

, Burns

W.J.

, Kasperson

J.X.

, Kasperson

R.E.

, and Slovic

(1992) The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues 48(4): 137–160.

34.

Runge

K.K.

, Brossard

, and Xenos

M.A.

(2018) Protective progressives to distrustful traditionalists: A post hoc segmentation method for science communication. Environmental Communication 12(8): 1023–1045.

35.

Sandman

P.M.

(2003) Four kinds of risk communication. Available at: http://www.psandman.com/col/4kind-1.htm (accessed 7 October, 2019).

36.

Schäfer

M.S.

, Füchslin

, Metag

, Kristiansen

, and Rauchfleisch

(2018) The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population's perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science 27(7): 836–856.

37.

Scheufele

D.A.

, Corley

E.A.

, Shih

T-j

, Dalrymple

K.E.

, and Ho

S.S.

(2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology (4): 91–94.

38.

Stevens

(2008) The government as a risk communicator: Good communication practice in the context of terrorism as a ‘new’ risk. Paper presented at the 58th Annual ICA Conference, Montreal, Canada, 22–26 May.

39.

W.X.

, and Wang

(2017) Imbalanced mirroring: The media framework of controversial technology in online videos—a case study on popular GMO videos on YouTube. Journalism and Mass Communication Monthly (2): 63–70, 92 (in Chinese).

40.

Xiong

, Liu

P.L.

, Xu

L.J.

, and Yang

X.N.

(2014) A study on public opinion on GMOs. Journal of Biosafety (4): 95–98 (in Chinese).

41.

Yuan

(2014) Man-Made Scare: Global Field Survey of GMOs. Beijing: New World Press (in Chinese).

42.

Zeng

F.X.

, and Dai

(2015) Risk Communication: The Path to Trust. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press (in Chinese).

Imagining GMOs: The Chinese public's scientific perception in the digital age

Abstract

Keywords

1. Research background: How scientific communication creates an informed public

Table 1 Summary of semi-structured in-depth interviews

Table 3 Interviewees’ opinions on GMO opponent Cui Yongyuan and his views Positive on Cui Neutral Negative on Cui Unmentioned GMO supporters 1 2 5 4 GMO neutrals 2 6 6 1 GMO opponents 7 9 2 6

3.3 Research finding 3: The trust mechanism of GMO perception in digital mobile scenarios

4. Discussion and conclusions

Funding

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

Author biographies

Appendix

References

Table 1
Summary of semi-structured in-depth interviews

Table 3
Interviewees’ opinions on GMO opponent Cui Yongyuan and his views

Positive on Cui Neutral Negative on Cui Unmentioned

GMO supporters 1 2 5 4

GMO neutrals 2 6 6 1

GMO opponents 7 9 2 6