Word selection affects perceptions of synthetic biology

Journal of Biological Engineering

A Malcolm Campbell⁴  Laurie J Heyer¹  Scott Tonidandel³  Kyri Bye-Nagel²  Sam Snell³  Brianna Pearson⁴ 

[1] Department of Mathematics, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035, USA;Department of Sociology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035, USA;Department of Psychology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035, USA;Department of Biology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035, USA

关键词: public perception;    framing effects;    religiosity;    education;    ethics;    synthetic biology;   

Others  :  813662
DOI  :  10.1186/1754-1611-5-9

 received in 2011-07-04, accepted in 2011-07-21,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Members of the synthetic biology community have discussed the significance of word selection when describing synthetic biology to the general public. In particular, many leaders proposed the word "create" was laden with negative connotations. We found that word choice and framing does affect public perception of synthetic biology. In a controlled experiment, participants perceived synthetic biology more negatively when "create" was used to describe the field compared to "construct" (p = 0.008). Contrary to popular opinion among synthetic biologists, however, low religiosity individuals were more influenced negatively by the framing manipulation than high religiosity people. Our results suggest that synthetic biologists directly influence public perception of their field through avoidance of the word "create".

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Pearson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Presidential Committee for the Study of Bioethical Issues: New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. [http://www.bioethics.gov/news/] webcite 2010.
• [2]Rizzo Alessandra: Church warns cell scientists not to play God. Salon.com. [http://www.salon.com/news/2010/05/21/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell] webcite viewed 1 July, 2011
• [3]Entmann RM: Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 1993, 43:51-58.
• [4]Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA: The future of public engagement. The Scientist 2007, 21(10):38.
• [5]Cobb MD: Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):221-239.
• [6]Macrae F: Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity? [http:/ / www.dailymail.co.uk/ sciencetech/ article-1279988/ Artificial-life-created-Craig-Vente r--wipe-humanity.html] webciteThe Daily Mail 2010.
• [7]Nisbet MC, Goidel RK: Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science 2007, 16:421-440.
• [8]Wilkes RE, Burnett JJ, Howell RD: On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1986, 14(1):47-56.
• [9]Koenig HG, George LK, Peterson BL: Religiosity and remission of depression in medically ill older patients. American Journal of Psychiatry 1998, 155:536-542.
• [10]Tan JHW: Religion and social preferences: An experimental study. Economic Letters 2006, 90:60-67.
• [11]Stewart CO, Dickerson DL, Hotchkiss R: Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Science Communication 2009, 30(4):427-452.