Biotechnology, communication and the public: Keys to delve into the social perception of science


The latest biotechnology applications allow for faster and cheaper gene editing than ever before. Many people are calling for a public debate on these issues, including the social, cultural and ethical implications of these applications. On the other hand, the information available to citizens is sometimes contradictory and communication that takes all these aspects into account is important and increasingly necessary. Therefore, understanding public attitudes towards biotechnology should be a priority for the work ahead.


biotechnology; communication; public understanding of science; genetic engineering; GMOs


  1. Akin, H., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. In K. Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3

  2. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The «nasty effect»: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12009

  3. Brossard, D. (2012). Social challenges: Public opinion and agricultural biotechnology. In J. Popp, M. Jahn, M. Matlock, & N. Kemper (Eds.), The role of biotechnology in a sustainable food supply (pp. 17–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  4. Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14096–14101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110

  5. Brossard, D. (2014). Science, its publics and new media: Reflecting on the present and future of science communication. Mètode Science Studies Journal - Annual Review, 4, 193–197. doi: 10.7203/metode.80.3123

  6. Brossard, D., Nesbitt, C., & Shanahan, J. (Eds.) (2007). The media, the public, and agricultural biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: CABI/Oxford University Press.

  7. Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edl003 

  8. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. doi: 10.1177/0963662507087304

  9. Covello, V. T. (2010). Risk communication. In H. Frumkin (Ed.), Environmental health: From local to global (pp. 1099–1140). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

  10. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science. In S. Krimsky, & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

  11. Gould, F., Amasino, R. M., Brossard, D., Buell, C. R., Dixon, R. A., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., ... Whitaker, R. J. (2017). Elevating the conversation about GE crops. Nature Biotechnology, 35(4), 302–304. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3841

  12. Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & 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. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017

  13. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J, & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.341

  14. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 

  15. Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S. W., Wu, J., Lee, Y., Suzuki, K., … Mitalipov, S. (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548, 413–419. doi: 10.1038/nature23305

  16. Merriam-Webster (2018). Biotechnology. In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

  17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395

  18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24623

  19. Nature. (2017). Gene editing in legal limbo in Europe. Nature, 542, 392. doi: 10.1038/542392a 

  20. Pew Research Center. (2016). Smartphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies but advanced economies still have higher rates of technology use. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

  21. Reuters Institute. (2017). Digital news report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from

  22. Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., Howell, E. L., Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., & Hardy, B. W. (2017). U. S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 357(6351), 553–554. doi: 10.1126/science.aan3708

  23. Yeo, S., Cacciatore, M., & Scheufele, D. (2015). News selectivity and beyond: Motivated reasoning in a changing media environment. In O. Jandura, T. Petersen, C. Mothes, & A. M. Schielicke (Eds.), Publizistik und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (pp. 83–104). Wiesbaden: Springer.

  24. Yeo, S. K., Xenos, M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2015). Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 172–191. doi: 10.1177/0002716214557782

Creative Commons License
Texts in the journal are –unless otherwise indicated– published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License