By IANS,
London : Scientists and the media define and conceptualise gene in different ways, defying the purpose of clarity and communication, according to a new study.
For instance, acrimonious and protracted debates on genetically modified crops or stem cell research illustrate the importance that genetics and molecular biology have gained in everyday life.
The study, ‘Frame that gene,’ is based on the analysis of 300 articles in British and Norwegian newspapers: The Guardian, The Sun and The Daily Mail from the UK; and Aftenposten, Dagbladet and VG from Norway.
The researchers – a molecular biologist, a media expert and a PhD student in science communication from the University of Oslo, Norway – identified five main ‘gene frames’ in different types of media.
For example, the “deterministic” frame, which was particularly evident in tabloid media, involves one-dimensional conclusions along the lines of “Drunk? It’s in your genes.”
According to the authors of the study, this may be related to the desire of journalists to sell a story by keeping it simple and accessible. Conversely, the “evolutionary” frame, commonly used by scientists, gives more insight, but may be difficult to communicate.
Moreover, the study also found that the gene has become a playful metaphor, for example by stating that “Mazda has many Ford genes.”
The analysis showed that journalists present the term ‘gene’ – either consciously or subconsciously – using a number of different frames that may invoke various prejudiced images in the reader’s mind.
“Such a diversity of meanings presents a key challenge to science communications, so both scientists and journalists could benefit from a clear classification of the polysemy,” the paper argued.
Polysemy is a relationship between designations and concepts in a given language in which one designation represents two or more concepts sharing certain characteristics.
The authors hoped that their novel approach will be a useful tool for journalists and scientists to improve their explanations of genetics for a broader audience and better understand how scientific topics are framed in the mass media.
“The common understanding of scientific topics is increasingly important because the public is more and more able to influence policy-making on scientific issues and thus the funding and even the nature of research itself”, explained Rebecca Carver from the Institute of Basic Medical Science at the University of Oslo and co-author of the study.
The study will appear in the October issue of EMBO.