This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bauer, M. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis

London School of Economics Department of Social Psychology, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK, Science Museum in London, M.Bauer{at}lse.ac.uk

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.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 11, No. 2, 93-111 (2002)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Gerhards and M. S. Schafer Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2009; 18(4): 437 - 451. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. C. Nisbet and R. K. Goidel Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic survey research divide Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2007; 16(4): 421 - 440. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Marks, N. Kalaitzandonakes, L. Wilkins, and L. Zakharova Mass media framing of biotechnology news Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 183 - 203. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Wagner Vernacular science knowledge: its role in everyday life communication Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2007; 16(1): 7 - 22. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Hansen Tampering with nature: 'nature' and the 'natural' in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology Media Culture Society, November 1, 2006; 28(6): 811 - 834. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Besley and J. Shanahan Media Attention and Exposure in Relation to Support for Agricultural Biotechnology Science Communication, June 1, 2005; 26(4): 347 - 367. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Tuunainen Contesting a Hybrid Firm at a Traditional University Social Studies of Science, April 1, 2005; 35(2): 173 - 210. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. R. Bates Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2005; 14(1): 47 - 65. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. W. Bauer Arenas, Platforms, and the Biotechnology Movement Science Communication, December 1, 2002; 24(2): 144 - 161. [Abstract] [PDF]