This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science 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 (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cook, G. Articles by Pieri, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

"Words of mass destruction": British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions

Open University in England, g.cook{at}open.ac.uk

Peter T. Robbins

Open University, academic staff at the ESRC Centre for the Study of Innovation in Genomics (INNOGEN), Open University and the University of Edinburgh

Elisa Pieri

ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, IEPPP, University of Lancaster

This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified (GM) food debate during the first half of 2003, and both expert and non-expert reactions to that coverage. Two pro-GM newspapers and two anti-GM newspapers were selected for analysis, and all articles mentioning GM during the period in question were stored in a machine readable database. This was then analyzed using corpus linguistic and discourse analytic techniques to reveal recurrent wording, themes and content. This text analysis was complemented by 12 interviews with experts involved in the communication of GM issues, and 12 focus-group sessions in which members of the public reacted to selected newspaper texts and other GM material. Both in the press and in public reaction, the issue of GM was found to be intimately associated with other political events of the time, notably the invasion of Iraq. Except among experts, there was little awareness of the official national debate and issues were approached in more general terms. Pro-GM characterization of the issues as primarily scientific, both by newspapers and experts, was rejected by the anti-GM press and campaigners, and by the focus-group participants. They assessed the issues in a more global frame, rejecting scientists and companies as unreliable. In addition, they linked both US and British GM policy to the invasion of Iraq, and, by analogy, rejected pro-GM arguments as untrustworthy.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, 5-29 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506058756


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Schafer From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical Assessment of Changes in Science Coverage Science Communication, June 1, 2009; 30(4): 475 - 505. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Burges Watson, T. Moreira, and M. Murtagh Little bottles and the promise of probiotics Health (London) , March 1, 2009; 13(2): 219 - 234. [Abstract] [PDF]