Synthetic Biology Parts, Devices and Applications

380 18 Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0 to Responsible Research and Innovation

then wrote articles based on these materials, which were used as topics to be

discussed by eight focus groups with member from the Austrian public. This

study showed two important observations of science communication from the

scientists via the media to the general public. The first observation indicated that

journalists focused on and selected more for real-world applications of SB (phar-

maceuticals, biofuels, etc.) than the abstract key scientific and engineering con-

cepts (such as standardization, modularization, etc.). As a result the very key

aspects that distinguish SB from GE were not disseminated properly to the pub-

lic via the social media (by the journalists, in this case), and thus the laypeople

could not see any difference between GE and SB, believing that SB was just

another name for GE. The second observation concerned the relation between

information and attitude. Before the participants got to read the articles, their

opinion toward SB was neutral, neither positive nor negative. But after reading

the articles, and partly due to the link made to GE, two groups became very nega-

tive, and two groups became very positive toward SB, whereas four groups still

had a rather neutral or uninterested opinion about SB (see Figure 18.1). So the

assumption that “the more they know, they more they like it” cannot be estab-

lished based on these empirical results. It turned out that the attitude toward SB

would likely be polarized after more information was provided. The information

in the focus groups was not taken in a neutral way, but rather the social identity

of the individual would influence the revision of the early attitude. This might

explain the polarization of attitudes toward SB in the Austrian laypeople.

A media analysis on SB was done on the German-language media articles pub-

lished between 2004 and 2008 [35]. It showed that the media reported about SB

focused more on the positive potential and less on the risks. The definition of SB

was introduced to the public along with possible applications. Journalists used

common metaphors to define SB such as “biological engineer,” “playing Lego,” or

“redesign of life,” while the common phrases were related to the terms “machines,”

“factories,” “computer engineering,” and “creation.” The analysis from this study

1

–100 –80 –60 –40 –20 020406080100

Before

After

2

1

2

3

4

Uninvolved

Critical

1

Suppor^2

tive

Figure 18.1 Focus group’s evaluation of SB, before and after they receive information. The

x-axis means: −100 totally opposed; 0 neutral; +100 totally endorsing. Consequences of media

information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology [34].