Historical survey of media coverage of biotechnology in the United States,
1970 to 1996
Paper presented to AEJMC Annual Meeting
8 August 1998
Baltimore, MD
1 July 1998
by
Bruce V. Lewenstein*, Tracy Allaman, and Shobita Parthasarathy
* To whom correspondence should be addressed:
Department of Communication
Cornell University
321 Kennedy Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Tel: 607-255-8310
Fax: 607-254-1322
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
All three authors are at Cornell University. Lewenstein is an
Associate Professor in the Departments of Communication and of Science &
Technology Studies. Allaman is an undergraduate in the Biology and
Society major of the Department of Science & Technology Studies, and
Parthasarathy is a graduate student in the Field of Science & Technology
Studies.
Survey of Biotech in the Media, 1970--1996, p.
Historical survey of media coverage of biotechnology in the United States,
1970 to 1996
Paper presented to AEJMC Annual Meeting
8 August 1998
Baltimore, MD
1 July 1998
Summary (55 words)
This study gathered data on coverage of biotechnology in the New York Times and
Newsweek, 1970- 1996. This preliminary report suggests that despite occasional
claims that the media have demonized biotechnology, in fact the dominant frames
for coverage have presented biotechnology as an element of social progress and
as a tool for economic development.
Abstract
Media coverage of biotechnology has played a crucial role in carrying debates
about the science, technology, economic, and ethical issues of biotechnology
from the halls of academe, business, and government to a broader audience. The
basic pattern of such coverage has been characterized as a shift from criticism
of "genetic engineering" in the 1970s through a more promotional tone on
"biotechnology" in the 1980s, and a more nuanced but nonetheless positive tone
in the 1990s. However, systematic data using consistent measurement criteria
and rigorous sampling methods have not previously been available. This study
gathered such data, looking particularly at the themes covered by articles and
the "frames" through which those themes have been viewed. This paper is a
preliminary presentation of the data from the study; it suggests that while
overall coverage of biotechnology has been steady for much of the last 20 years,
the individual themes making up that coverage have varied over time with no
overall pattern. The paper also suggests that, despite occasional claims that
the media have demonized biotechnology, in fact the dominant frames for coverage
have presented biotechnology as an element of social progress and as a tool for
economic development.
Historical survey of media coverage of biotechnology in the United States,
1970 to 1996
Biotechnology, if taken broadly to mean the manipulation of biological material
for human purposes, can be traced to the earliest experiments with plant and
animal breeding, wine- and cheese-making, or the modification of environmental
conditions for plants and animals. In current usage, however, it most often
refers to the development of techniques since the early 1970s for direct genetic
manipulation, whether in animals, plants, or people. It can be applied for
medical or agricultural purposes. Medical biotechnology--from improved
techniques for early identification of genetic defects to more active gene
therapy through to the bioengineering of species that can produce pharmaceutical
products--has raised a host of ethical, economic, and technical issues.
Similarly, agricultural biotechnology has been seen sometimes as a panacea for
the world food shortage and at other times as a source of "alien" species that
may produce untold harm to the natural environment (see, for example, Bud, 1993;
Durant, 1992; Limoges, Cambrosio, Hoffman, Pronovost & Charron, 1990; Teitelman,
1989).
Scientific, industrial, and government groups have been concerned throughout
the development of modern biotechnology about public attitudes toward the new
developments (Berg et al., 1974; Watson & Tooze, 1981; Nelkin, 1995; Nelkin &
Lindee, 1995). Surveys about public attitudes toward biotechnology have been
difficult to interpret because respondents may or may not have had a fundamental
grasp of the science involved. But the questions that lay publics have raised
also may or may not be answerable by any amount of technical knowledge about how
genetic engineering works. For example, much of the attempt on the part of the
Monsanto Corporation to win public support for the introduction of bovine
somatotropin (bST) through public education was probably misdirected (Hornig,
1994). While Monsanto claimed that opposition was the result of scientific
ignorance (largely on the part of fringe political groups) and attempted to
combat it with claims that milk produced by cows fed the genetically engineered
growth hormone would be "safe" (along with playing on our cultural association
of the latest, greatest, and most technical innovations with "progress"), the
most effective opposition came from dairy farmers who feared not a deterioration
of the milk supply but dire economic consequences. By engaging in an often
heated and still not entirely resolved controversy over "safety," Monsanto may
have succeeded only in escalating the level of public controversy while
alienating its own primary consumer--the dairy business. In contrast, Calgene's
introduction of the genetically-engineered "FlavrSavr" tomato went relatively
smoothly (Leary, 1994).
Throughout the controversies over biotechnology since the 1970s, the media has
played a crucial role in carrying the discussion from the halls of academe,
business, and government regulatory hearings to a broader audience. The basic
pattern of such coverage has been characterized as a shift from a critical
perspective on "genetic engineering" in the 1970s through a more promotional
shift towards "biotechnology" in the 1980s, into a somewhat more nuanced but
nonetheless still positive coverage in the 1990s (Nelkin, 1995; Goodell, 1980;
Goodell, 1986). But the details of this coverage and theoretical analysis of
its content have not previously existed. Such an analysis is crucial, both for
accurate historical understanding of the media's role in the development of
biotechnology and for contemporary policy analysts planning future initiatives
in biotechnology-related work.
Analytical Context
Plein (1991) has noted how the biotechnology industry has used media accounts
to attempt to "frame" issues related to biotechnology in terms it considers
favorable. Media "framing" theory suggests that every media story is presented
through a particular "frame" or perspective. By choosing which events and
issues to stress, reporters and editors shape the way that the general public
understands the world around it. Any one story or groups of stories provides a
particular perspective or meaning to an event or issue, with the "frame"
excluding other perspectives. As one classic formulation puts it, the press
"may not be successful much of the time in telling its readers what to think,
but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about"
(Cohen, 1963). The question of issue "framing" for biotechnology is of special
interest to media theorists because biotechnology is new and potentially
controversial in several different ways (environmental impact, economic impact,
health impact, ethical issues, and so on). The bST controversy, in which bST's
developers were speaking one language, consumers another, and farmers yet a
third, illustrates this potential. Few media analyses have attempted to deal
with the complexity in the possible range of frames that might be applied to a
particular set of coverage; the study described here thus contributes directly
to the development of more robust media theory, particularly for dealing with
complex scientific and technological topics as they appear in the media.
Biotechnology offers another challenge to media theory, because the frames in
which stories were presented may have had relatively little impact on the
ultimate consumer response to biotechnology (Priest, 1995). "Active audience"
concepts in media theory suggest that readers and viewers of information about
biotechnology (as for other science- and technology-related developments)
interpret media accounts in light of their general trust in scientific
institutions and their interest in questions of ethics, regulation, and social
impact, as well as their knowledge of the science itself. Such audience
"schemas" (Priest, 1994) or pre-existing categories act as strong filters for
media messages about science, as well as for information of other types, such as
political news. In other words, audiences who believe scientists cannot be
trusted or that socioeconomic impact is more important than scientific
advancement are unlikely to be swayed by media stories depicting trustworthy
scientists or brilliant technical achievements. To command attention, story
frames must mesh with the pre-existing audience schemas ; stories must address
issues that audiences consider important. Just as audiences convinced that
Democrats (or Republicans, or Libertarians, or business people, or university
professors) are "bad" are unlikely to be persuaded by any amount of information
to the contrary, so audiences already concerned about social impacts of
biotechnology are unlikely to be affected by stories about the technical
achievements of genetic engineers.
However, acting together, the interaction of media frames and audience schemas
are likely to have an impact on the outcome of public controversies. The media
and the public are two of the key players in the interactive process that Lang
and Lang (1983) call "agenda building," a process through which public
controversies develop and play out. For this reason, in order to understand and
anticipate public opinion about biotechnology, knowledge of what appears in news
stories remains important.
Unfortunately, few systematic surveys of U.S. media content focusing on
biotechnology have been carried out. One small-scale study by researchers at
Texas A&M University (Priest & Talbert, 1994) suggested that newspaper coverage
of biotechnology is heavily dominated by the university and industrial promoters
of that technology, with consumers, medical professionals, and agriculturalists
quoted relatively rarely. Similar results were found in a study conducted by
researchers in the agricultural communication unit at University of
California--Davis (Beall & Hayes, 1996). As the bST case has shown us, and as
"active audience" media theories predict, domination of the news by industry
sources is unlikely to garner public support for biotechnology. However, the
Priest and Talbert study, which deliberately sampled a range of papers in
smaller, medium, and large markets, excluded wire service news and covered a
limited period of time; the Beall study had similar limitations. The question
of what broad coverage of biotechnology and public debates about biotechnology
has appeared over the last generation remains unanswered.
One of the most effective ways of illuminating the nature of the
agenda-building process in a particular cultural context (that is, in a
particular country) is through a cross-cultural analysis. If the issues that
rise to the forefront for a particular case such as biotechnology are indeed the
produce of the interaction of social institutions (including the media and the
public) and are not inherent in the case itself (that is, in this case, not
inherent in the science or technology), we would expect these issues to be
defined and prioritized in different ways in different cultures. For example,
in the summer of 1996, Monsanto's introduction of genetically-altered soya beans
in Europe led to dozens and sometimes hundreds of articles in leading European
newspapers; the soya issue has, to date, been essentially absent from the U.S.
media, despite public statements by a variety of American institutions (ranging
from critics of the soya item such as the Foundation for Economic Trends run by
biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin through "fact sheets" issued by the Institute
for Food Technology, an industry organization that represents both food
producers and academic researchers). Comparing the American and European
coverage can provide insight into the different cultural contexts that shape the
agenda-building process.
Method
In 1994, the European Union launched a major cross-national study of
biotechnology (Bauer, Durant, and Gaskell, 1998).[1] That project has three
elements: (1) measurement of public opinion on biotechnology, (2) analysis of
the policy context for biotechnology, and (3) historical analysis of media
coverage of biotechnology. Canadian researchers are conducting a parallel
project, and individual American researchers have begun preparing studies on the
public opinion and policy aspects of biotechnology. However, those studies have
not yet been reported and are not further considered in this paper. The study
described in this paper pertains only to the media analysis that will eventually
allow for the full comparison of the American and EU cases.
As such, this study used the methodology developed and elaborated by the
European team in a series of meetings from 1994 onward. The core of the
technique is content analysis, a well-established analytical technique for
recording the content of large numbers of media stories (Krippendorff, 1980;
Holsti, 1969; Stempel & Westley, 1989). The key elements of the methodology
include identification of appropriate media outlets to sample, a sampling
frame, and a codebook for the content analysis.
Media outlets. The EU study has elected to sample a single "national, quality,
opinion- leader" daily paper in each country. Unlike the European countries,
however, the United States has a decentralized media market with neither a
single opinion-leader media outlet, nor a sharp distinction between the
"quality" and "tabloid" presses. The most comparable paper is the New York
Times, which is widely recognized as a newspaper that shapes media coverage for
other outlets; it therefore formed the base for the analysis, and is the only
newspaper for which data is reported in this study. However, the ongoing
project will also be selecting media reports from other papers across the
country.
Because of the interest in "opinion leader" publications and the role of weekly
publications in many European countries, some of the individual country teams in
the EU study have also included a sample of stories drawn from major weekly
magazines. For the United States, we are sampling two of the major
newsweeklies: Time and Newsweek. This paper reports data only from Newsweek.
Sampling frame. Based on extensive discussions among the participants, the
European study defined the historical sampling frame as the time period 1970 to
1996. All stories meeting a specific set of criteria were identified, and then
a statistically-appropriate sample drawn from that population. The selection
criteria vary slightly by country and language, but generally include any
article that mentions:
biotech* [the asterisk indicates truncation; articles containing
"biotech," "biotechnology," "biotechnologies," etc. would be
retrieved]
clone*, cloning
genetic* engineer*
genetic* manipulat*
gene* technolog*
gene* therap*
recombinant DNA
The sampling frame established by the EU study appears to be appropriate for
the American context, and therefore was adopted almost without change. We did
make one exception: Terms such as "genome" and "DNA fingerprinting" have been
used in the EU study. However, in the United States, those terms were deemed
likely to generate a high number of hits that are not relevant to this project
(because of articles about the human genome project and about the use of DNA
fingerprinting in the O.J. Simpson murder case). Because of resource
limitations, we feared that these articles would overwhelm our sampling system.
Therefore, we excluded those terms in our first pass through the data, which is
reported here. This introduces a significant limitation to the potential
comparison with the European data, one which we hope to address in future
studies.
Codebook. Again based on extensive discussions, the EU study developed a
codebook that measures both relatively objective data (such as length,
position in paper, author, and sources used) and subjective issues
such as
tone, use of metaphors, and story frames. The EU codebook appeared to
be
appropriate for a U.S. study, and was adopted with only minor changes
to
ensure maximum comparability between the studies. The code book
identified eight clusters of issues:
* Technical issues involving transgenic manipulation (such as plant
breeding, gene therapy, and technical aspects of the field tests of
genetically-manipulated organisms)
* Safety issues (including laboratory safety, food safety, and
environmental safety)
* Issues of personal identity (such as genetic fingerprinting, disease
diagnosis, and insurance)
* Political issues (such as patenting, economic impacts, and regulation)
* Public issues (such as public opinion, education and genetic literacy,
and fear)
* Scientific issues (such as biodiversity, development of vaccines, and
general DNA research)
In addition, based on qualitative reading in a sample of articles collected
before the full coding proceeded in Europe, the team identified eight "frames"
which attempted the capture the overall tone of the coverage:
* Progress Celebration of new development or breakthrough; direction of
history; conflict between progressive ideals and
conservative/reactionary
ideals
* Economic prospect Economic potential; prospects for investment and
profit; discussions of research and development links
* Ethical Call for ethical principles; ethical thresholds; ethical
boundaries; distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable
risks in
discussions on known risks; ethical dilemmas
* Pandora's Box Call for restraint in face of unknown risk; warnings
about "opening of flood gates"; unknown risks as anticipated threats;
warnings of catastrophe
* Runaway Fatalism after an innovation; likelihood of future costs
having adopted new technologies or products; lack of control
after a
development
* Nature/nurture Environmental vs. genetic determination; inheritance
issues
* Public Call for private control, participation, public involvement;
accountability regulatory mechanisms; public vs. private interests
* Globalization Call for global perspective; national competitiveness
within global economy; ability to remain isolated within global system
.
Analysis. Articles were identified via searches in both paper and electronic
indexes. After a universe of articles was identified, a sample was drawn of
approximately 300 articles in each publication. For the study reported in this
paper, those publications were the New York Times and Newsweek. All articles
included in the sample were retrieved either in full-text computerized versions
or in photocopies made from microfilm or microfiche. One author coded the New
York Times (SP) and one author coded the Newsweek articles (TA). Frequent
discussions during the coding process were held to ensure common understandings
of the codebook. An intercoder reliability test conducted at the end of the
coding process for the first set of publications yielded 65 percent agreement
over all coding decisions; as the overall project continues, we expect to
improve the reliability.[2]
No formal hypotheses were developed at this stage of the project; our goal was
primarily descriptive. All data was entered into the statistical package SPSS
for generating frequencies, cross-tabulations, and graphics.
Results
Figures 1 and 2 show the overall frequency of articles in the two publications.
The New York Times showed an early peak in the late 1970s, tied to public
debates about the safety and regulatory issues posed by the newly emerging
genetic engineering. Both publications showed substantial growth in coverage
after 1980, with individual variation in subsequent years but no clear patterns.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Insert Figure 2 about here
To understand the ebb and flow of specific issues in the overall coverage,
nearly 40 individual topics were tracked over the entire period. Figures 3 a-f
(New York Times) and Figures 4 a-f (Newsweek) show the frequency of several
clusters of themes in the two publications:
* Technical issues involving transgenic manipulation (such as plant
breeding, gene therapy, and technical aspects of the field tests of
genetically-manipulated organisms)
* Safety issues (including both laboratory safety, food safety, and
environmental safety)
* Issues of personal identity (such as genetic fingerprinting, disease
diagnosis, and insurance)
* Political issues (such as patenting, economic impacts, and regulation)
* Public issues (such as public opinion, education and genetic literacy,
and fear)
* Scientific issues (such as biodiversity, development of vaccines, and
general DNA research)
Insert Figures 3 a-f about here
Insert Figures 4 a-f about here
Finally, to understand the overall perspective of the articles, eight "frames"
were identified and tracked throughout the period:
* Progress Celebration of new development or breakthrough; direction of
history; conflict between progressive ideals and
conservative/reactionary
ideals
* Economic prospect Economic potential; prospects for investment and
profit; discussions of research and development links *
Ethical Call for
ethical principles; ethical thresholds; ethical boundaries;
distinctions
between acceptable and unacceptable risks in discussions on
known risks;
ethical dilemmas
* Pandora's Box Call for restraint in face of unknown risk; warnings
about "opening of flood gates"; unknown risks as anticipated threats;
warnings of catastrophe
* Runaway Fatalism after an innovation; likelihood of future costs
having adopted new technologies or products; lack of control
after a
development
* Nature/nurture Environmental vs. genetic determination; inheritance
issues
* Public Call for private control, participation, public involvement;
accountability regulatory mechanisms; public vs. private interests
* Globalization Call for global perspective; national competitiveness
within global economy; ability to remain isolated within global system
Figures 5 a-h show the frames that appeared in the two publications.
Insert Figures 5 a-h about here
Discussion
The data presented in this paper provide a general overview of media coverage
of biotechnology since 1970. After the initial burst of coverage in the
mid-1970s, tied to the discussion of the safety of genetic engineering research,
coverage quickly reached a steady state in the 1980s and has remained relatively
stable since then. The particular sources used for this study-the New York
Times and Newsweek-show similar patterns; this is to be expected, since both
represent New York-based elite media. As noted in the introductory sections of
this paper, continuing work on this project, which will look at a broader
spectrum of media outlets, may reveal different patterns.
Within the overall steady state, however, different themes have dominated the
coverage at different times. The three most common clusters of themes have been
the transgenic, scientific, and policy clusters (Figures 6 a-f). The science
themes, which provided much of the early impetus for coverage, maintain a
steady, though slightly downward, trend throughout the period. Further work
will be needed to identify the specific events and developments tied to the
peaks and troughs of coverage, but the noticeable issue is the steady presence
of science issues in the coverage. On the other hand, more specific technical
discussions of transgenic research, while contributing to the coverage
throughout the period, have shown much more variation. They show their most
substantial levels during the late 1980s, a period when the actual release of
genetically-modified organisms and introduction of specific therapeutic products
was newest. Finally, the policy themes have had an overall contribution similar
to the science themes. But, like the transgenic themes, the policy coverage
rises and falls quite a bit; no clear trend or peak appears in the coverage of
policy themes. Thus, like the science themes, more work will be needed to tie
coverage of policy issues to specific developments in the history of
biotechnology.
Insert Figures 6 a-f about here
Of the less common themes, those dealing with identity are the most sporadic.
While the cognoscenti are often concerned about how genetic manipulation may
shape our identity as humans, the topic has overall not been a major part of the
public debate. Safety, on the other hand, has been a much more constant element
in the coverage, though by no means prominent. The coverage of safety has not
been high, but has nonetheless remained a steady presence in the public debate.
Finally, the discussion of the discussion-that is, coverage of public opinion,
genetic literacy, and so on-shows a clear rise and fall, reaching its peaks
largely in the 1980s. Further investigation will be needed to identify reason
for the spike in attention to public issues in 1993.
Exploring the coverage of specific themes tells us only what the media were
covering. It tells us little about the perspective, tone, or impact of that
coverage. The analysis of media frames suggests that, despite occasional claims
that the media demonize biotechnology or present it only in terms of its risks
to society, in fact the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive. More than 40
percent of the overall set of stories discussed in this paper are in the
"progress" frame, indicating that the media presentations show biotechnology as
contributing to the positive development of society. Another 22 percent present
biotechnology largely in an economic frame; those stories have essentially
presupposed that biotechnology is a "good" thing, and are now exploring the
economic potential of issues like new vaccines, genetic tests, and so on.
It is true, however, that issues of regulation, ethics, and accountability have
contributed in substantial ways to the media coverage. About 11 percent of the
overall stories focus on public accountability, 8 percent on ethical issues, and
five percent on the "Pandora's Box" set of concerns about biotechnology. Thus
one-quarter of the coverage has looked at biotechnology through potentially
critical eyes.
Each of these conclusions, of course, is limited by the problems of reliability
and sampling reported above.
Moreover, simply identifying the patterns of coverage tells us little without
better knowledge of the public opinion and policy contexts within which these
stories appeared. For example, in the minds of members of the public, do the 25
percent of stories that have critical perspectives remain more salient than the
65 percent of stories that are essentially positive? To answer this, we will
need to tie the results of this study to the public opinion data being gathered
by others as part of the overall EU and United States studies of which this is a
part. Then, to interpret that public opinion data, we are likely to need to
understand more deeply the ways that media frames interact with personal schema.
On the policy side, we need to know more about which elements of the pattern of
coverage are tied to specific events or policy developments. At this time, we
cannot make those connections, because the research program from which this
paper emerged has not been completed.
But for now, we can say that media coverage has been varied, complex, and
presented from multiple perspectives. Clearly, no simple response can be given
to the question, "how has the media presented biotechnology since 1970?"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Gaskell, G. (1998, in press). Biotechnology and
the European Public. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beall, G. A., & Hayes, J. H. (1996). Agricultural Biotechnology: What is
News and Who are the Sources. Paper presented at the Public Communication
of Science and Technology--4, Melbourne, Australia.
Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Boyer, H. W., Cohen, S. N., Davis, R. W.,
Hogness, D. S., Nathans, D., Roblin, R., Watson, J. D., Weissman, S., &
Zinder, N. D. (1974). Letter: Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA
Molecules. Science, 185, 303.
Bud, R. (1993). The Uses of Life: A History of Biotechnology.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, B. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press.
Durant, J. (Ed.). (1992). Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent
Research. London: Science Museum, for the European Federation of
Biotechnology.
Goodell, R. (1980, November/December). The Gene Craze. Columbia Journalism
Review, 41-45.
Goodell, R. (1986). How to Kill a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant
DNA. In S. Dunwoody, S. M. Friedman, & C. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and
Journalists (pp. 170-181). New York: Free Press.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1969.
Hornig, S. (1994). Monsanto Corporation and Bovine Somatotropin: A Case
Study in Failed Public Relations (Discussion Paper CBPE 94-1). College
Station, TX: Texas A&M Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its
Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1983). The Battle for Public Opinion: The
President, the Press, and the Polls During Watergate. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Leary, W. E. (1994, 22 May). Out of the Lab, into the Grocery Store: Gene
Therapy for Tomatoes. New York Times, pp. E2.
Limoges, C., Cambrosio, A., Hoffman, E., Pronovost, D., & Charron, D.
(1990). Biotechnology 1973- 1990. Paper presented at the Workshop on
Genetically Modified Microbial Fertilizers and Pest Control Agents,
Ottawa, Canada.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and
Technology. (rev. ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a
Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Plein, C. (1991). Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of Issue
Definition. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14, 474-490.
Priest, S. H. (1994). Structuring Public Debate on a High-Technology
Issue. Science Communication, 16(2), 166-179.
Priest, S. H. (1995). Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science,
and the Biotechnology Debate. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 39-54.
Priest, S. H., & Talbert, J. (1994). Mass Media and the Ultimate
Technological Fix: Newspaper Coverage of Biotechnology. Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal, 10(1), 76-85.
Stempel, G. H., III, & Westley, B. H. (Eds.). (1989). Research Methods in
Mass Communication (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Teitelman, R. (1989). Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia, and the Rise of
Biotechnology. New York: Basic Books.
Watson, J., D., & Tooze, J. (1981). The DNA Story: A Documentary History
of Gene Cloning. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
[1] The EU project, called "Biotechnology and the European Public," is led by
John Durant, Professor of Public Understanding of Science, Imperial College, and
Associate Director for Science Communication, Science Museum, London; and
Professor George Gaskell and Dr. Martin Bauer, London School of Economics.
Funded by DG12 of the European Commission, it includes teams from 10 of the 15
EU countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; missing are Belgium,
Ireland, Luxemborg, Portugal, and Spain). In addition, closely coordinated
studies such as the one described in this proposal are being conducted in
Norway, Poland, Switzerland, and Canada.
[2] A better procedure would have been to train both coders before the coding
process began, including reliability checks on subsets of the overall sample
until acceptable reliability had been achieved. Only then would the full coding
procedure continue. However, the second coder was not recruited until after
coding began, and so the alternate procedure described here was used. We intend
to re-do the coder training and recode the articles, along with additional
articles from other publications, in the future.
|
