Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Frame that gene

2008; Springer Nature; Volume: 9; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1038/embor.2008.176

1469-3178

Rebecca Bruu Carver, Ragnar Waldahl, Jarle Breivik,

Misinformation and Its Impacts

Viewpoint5 September 2008free access Frame that gene A tool for analysing and classifying the communication of genetics to the public Rebecca Carver Rebecca Carver Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Ragnar Waldahl Ragnar Waldahl Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Jarle Breivik Jarle Breivik Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Rebecca Carver Rebecca Carver Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Ragnar Waldahl Ragnar Waldahl Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Jarle Breivik Jarle Breivik Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway Search for more papers by this author Author Information Rebecca Carver1, Ragnar Waldahl2 and Jarle Breivik1 1Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway 2Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, Norway EMBO Reports (2008)9:943-947https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2008.176 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions Figures & Info Enabling the public to understand scientific concepts and advances, and the issues they raise, is an increasingly important challenge for scientists and politicians alike. Public opinion—received via polls and elections—can influence scientific policy-making, and hence affect the funding and even the nature or focus of research itself. The fierce dispute over genetically modified crops in Europe, and the sometimes bitter debates about research using human embryonic stem cells in both Europe and the USA, highlight the enormous importance of public opinion on scientific issues. A greater awareness of the ethical, technical and philosophical issues surrounding research, as well as a better understanding of the science itself, could lead to more rational debates and outcomes—at least, that is what many scientists hope. The media therefore has a central role in furthering or modifying the public understanding of, and engagement with, scientific issues: it is the main source of information for many people, even more so than politicians, educators or scientists. A greater awareness of the ethical, technical and philosophical issues surrounding research […] could lead to more rational debates and outcomes… No single scientific concept is more fundamental to the understanding of life science than ‘the gene’. The gene has also become a key term in public discourse, and hardly a day goes by without some mention of genes in the media (Petersen, 2002). So, what is a gene in the eyes of the public? Several studies have highlighted the tendency of the mass media to present genes as deterministic causes of human behaviour or disease, as exemplified by headlines such as ‘The infidelity gene’ or ‘Drunk? It's in your genes’ (Hubbard & Wald, 1993; Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Condit et al, 1998; Conrad, 2001; Condit, 2007). On the basis of an analysis of popular discourse in the USA, the American sociologist Dorothy Nelkin (1933–2003) and the historian Susan Lindee concluded in their book, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, that “The gene has become a supergene, an almost supernatural and deterministic entity that has the power to define identity, determine human affairs, dictate human relationships and explain social problems” (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). The gene has […] become a key term in public discourse, and hardly a day goes by without some mention of genes in the media Celeste Condit, Professor of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia (Athens, GA, USA), has argued that there are actually many different ways in which genes are discussed in the public discourse, including non-deterministic perspectives that involve gene–environment interaction (Condit et al, 1998, 2001; Condit, 2007). In addition, several authors have argued that the gene is a complex concept with several valid and changing meanings, both in the scientific and public discourse (Shea, 2001; Turney, 2005; Stotz et al, 2006; Pearson, 2006). This diversity of meanings represented by the word ‘gene’ is a key challenge in science communication. As both scientists and journalists could benefit from a clear classification of the polysemy, we have categorized the different meanings of the gene concept as they appear in the mass media. To gain insight into the contemporary European media, in two different languages, we analysed British and Norwegian newspapers from the period between 2003 and 2006. We chose to analyse the national press because it addresses a broad audience and communicates the perspectives of a wide range of opinion leaders including journalists, politicians and scientists. We selected six leading national daily newspapers representing different market segments: The Guardian, The Sun and The Daily Mail from the UK; and Aftenposten, Dagbladet and VG from Norway. Gene-related articles, including news stories, news briefs, commentaries and feature articles, were retrieved from the electronic databases Factiva (UK) and Atekst (Norway) by searching for ‘gene OR genes’ and ‘gen OR gener’, respectively. We then randomly selected 50 articles from each newspaper for analysis, successively excluding those not referring to the actual gene concept—such as those containing ‘Gene’ as part of a name. To make sense of scientific knowledge—or any other issue—the information conveyed has to be organized into a larger, often more accessible, intellectual framework: it has to be ‘framed’ (Goffman, 1974; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Journalists and other communicators consciously or unconsciously frame their stories by using certain words, facts, depictions, metaphors, sources of information and images. A particular scientific concept might therefore be presented or described in ways that communicate different meanings. For example, a fetus might be described as “a small ball of cells” or “a fragile human life” when discussing abortion. Each frame conveys a different interpretation of the same reality, and causes a different mental response in the reader (Kitzinger, 2007). The analysis of framing is a multidisciplinary research approach intended to identify and explore such interpretations, and to address the underlying process of communication. Thereby, it offers insight into how the media might shape the public perception of an issue (Entman, 1993). A few studies have looked at the framing of issues related to genetics, including biomedicine and mental illness (Petersen, 2001; Conrad, 2001). Condit has analysed the meaning of genetics in different contexts, and has recently proposed several ‘gene frames’ (Condit, 2007). Yet, there has been no explicit framing analysis of the gene concept. To address this issue, we began our analysis by proposing several hypothetical gene frames. Within the scientific discourse, we recognized the marked difference between how the gene concept is used in molecular biology compared with evolutionary biology or population genetics (Moss, 2003; Stotz & Griffiths, 2004; Pearson, 2006). We therefore suspected that we might find a similar distinction in the press between a materialistic frame, which regards the gene as a distinct molecular entity, and an evolutionary frame, which treats the gene as a more abstract and dynamic entity. Similarly, we adopted the results from previous studies on how the media tend to present genes as deterministic and symbolic entities, including the recent proposal by Condit of a ‘gene versus environment’ frame, a ‘gene–environment interaction’ frame and a ‘genes win’ frame (Hubbard & Wald, 1993; Conrad, 2001; Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Condit, 2007). To test and refine these hypothetical gene frames, we conducted a systematic framing analysis of the 300 selected articles. Key words, phrases, descriptions and metaphors relating to the gene concept were recorded for each article and compared with the hypothetical frameset. Matching features were seen as confirmation of the model, whereas non-matching features were used as a basis for diversification and refinement. Each article was analysed several times. Category boundaries were refined and new frames emerged, some of which were classified further into subframes. Eventually, we were able to define five distinctive main frames and seven subframes representing different ways of communicating the gene concept (Table 1). Table 1. Gene frames Gene frame Subframe Description of the gene Key words and phrases Metaphors Materialistic – A discrete physical unit DNA, chromosome, identify, locate, isolate, deliver, transfer, specific, replace, inject, discover, code, protein, mutation Alphabet, book, map, code Deterministic ClassicGene versus environment A definite causal agentContrary to environmental factors Gene for, cause, control, culprit, blame, disease-gene, responsible for, wired in genes, born withGenes or environment, not down to our genes, genetic, environmental Computer program, recipe/instruction manual– Relativistic – A predisposing factor Risk, chance, factor, associated with, susceptible to, linked to, contribute, predispose, interfere, influence, play a part in, genes are involved – Evolutionary Unit of selectionHistoricalInteractive The central object of evolutionA marker for evolutionary stageInteracting with the environment Being selected, make copies, replicate, reproduce, through generations, adapt, maladaptiveEvolve, evolutionary relatedness, conserve, diversity, development, DNA record, gene bank, marker, extinction, changeInteract, complexity, dynamic, capacity, external influence, environment, depends on, in combination with, affected by, expression, triggered by, prevent, respond, turn on/off The selfish gene–Like a switch or tap Symbolic RhetoricalMetaphoric An abstract representation of inheritanceA metaphor for information transfer It must be in the genes, good genes, gene pool, inherit, talent, “I inherited a shopping gene”For example, Mazda got “Ford genes” –– Biology textbooks commonly describe the gene as a physical entity defined by a particular fragment or sequence of the DNA molecule. This materialistic frame was also recognized in our sample of newspaper articles. It was particularly related to issues of gene technology including genetically modified foods, cloning, in vitro fertilization, gene therapy and genetic screening. The gene was typically described as a physical unit of information that might be identified, isolated, removed, replaced, inserted or transferred. This frame also appeared in articles about genetics in general, and was sometimes emphasized by metaphors describing the genome as a code, book or map to be deciphered or read. As a key example, science writer Matt Ridley was quoted as follows in an article announcing the death of Francis Crick: “He found that genes are digital codes written on DNA molecules, that the code is in three-letter words—and he helped to crack the code” (Wilks, 2004). Such materialistic framing could also be accentuated by illustrations of the DNA double helix. The classical deterministic frame was also evident in our material, and commonly appeared in breakthrough stories about gene discoveries, with titles such as ‘The gene for homosexuality’ and key words such as ‘cause’, ‘control’, ‘blame’ and ‘disease’. The Sun carried the following news brief: “Homosexuals are BORN gay and have no choice in their sexuality, say researchers at University of California, Los Angeles. They found sexual identity is wired in our genes before birth” (The Sun, 2003). Other examples were less profound, stating, for example, that a specific gene causes a particular trait or disorder, such as Huntington disease. A few articles questioned whether a certain trait was determined by either genetic or environmental factors, therefore reflecting the dichotomy represented by the ‘gene versus environment’ frame described by Condit. This frame was classified as a particular subtype of genetic determinism related to the nature–nurture controversy. Such articles tended to debate the causes of human behaviours or features such as sexuality, weight, eating habits and talents, concluding, for example, that they have nothing to do with genes. Some articles were more cautious and used a more scientific terminology to describe the role of genes. Instead of saying that scientists have found the genes ‘for’ breast cancer, one article in The Guardian stated that “Scientists have identified the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 which can significantly increase the risk [of breast cancer] if they mutate, but these only account for 5% of all cases” (Jha, 2005). Such relativistic statements present the gene as a partial factor in the development of certain traits, treating genetic causation as a probabilistic claim rather than a deterministic fact. These articles were often about medical conditions such as diabetes, asthma, cancer and heart failure, and were commonly related to family history of disease. The gene concept was referred to with phrases such as ‘genetic link’, ‘predisposition’, ‘increased risk’ and ‘might lead to’, thereby indicating that the genetic contribution is uncertain and other factors also have a role. A discussion of the nature and importance of these factors was generally omitted. Other articles gave more insight into the relationship between genes and environment, and were particularly characterized by an evolutionary perspective. This evolutionary frame could be further classified into three subframes. One set of the articles described the gene as the ‘unit of selection’, adopting a classic Darwinian perspective. Typically concerning issues of sexual attraction and mate choice, most of these articles focused on the selection and propagation of genes from one generation to another. Others concerned the interaction between genes and lifestyle, such as how our genes have evolved to manage situations of food deficiency, thereby promoting overeating and obesity in modern society. Some of these articles also adopted a ‘selfish gene’ perspective, which regards the propagation of genes as the ultimate objective of biology. This particular stance was illustrated by a feature article in The Guardian in which the author, a scientist, argued that “Being kind to our relatives makes biological sense so long as it boosts the chances of our genes, carried in our relatives' bodies, making it through to the next generation” (McFadden, 2004). …lay audiences that adopt a deterministic perspective often overestimate the genetic contribution to health and make less effort to prevent disease by changing their lifestyles A second subsection of articles regarded the gene as a historical entity, representing genes as markers for stages in evolution. Such articles were typically about human evolution, population genetics, species conservation or bio-banking. As an illustration, an article in VG stated that “Scientists are looking for genetic markers in our genome; on the Y chromosome […] they are like road signs that show us where and when we took a new turn” (translated from Norwegian; Nilsen, 2005). A third set of articles was not concerned with the evolutionary timescale, but focused on the immediate interaction between genes and the environment, often in relation to health and disease. Some of these articles described genes as switches that can be turned on or off by environmentally induced cues. For example, Aftenposten, The Daily Mail and The Guardian all featured similar articles about gene–environment interactions during pregnancy, such as the effects of smoking or diet. Citing a scientist, The Guardian stated that “There is an interaction between genes and the environment that happens in early foetal life—there is some ‘silencing’ of genes that turns them off […] There is some fine-tuning going on. This is how the effects can be passed down through generations” (Dillner, 2005). Previous studies have tended to describe the deterministic and symbolic qualities of the gene concept as a combined perspective (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). In this study, however, we recognized a marked difference between a deterministic frame, which refers to a scientific context, and a symbolic frame, which uses the gene concept in an unscientific and often humoristic manner. In most articles of the latter type, the authors or interviewees used the gene concept rhetorically, commonly signifying characteristics that are obviously more dependent on cultural than genetic inheritance. A person interviewed by The Sun stated that “Fashion has always been in my genes. I think I inherited it from my dad” (Evison, 2003). The phrase “It must be in the genes” was particularly common, often accompanied by informal statements about having “rugby genes”, “football genes”, “ironic genes” or “shopping genes”. Another type of symbolic frame showed even more detachment from the biological gene concept. In the motor section of Aftenposten, a new Mazda car was said to have “many Ford genes”, in relation to the fact that the Ford and the Mazda shared common technologies. Similarly, The Daily Mail reported that “Bentley is owned by Volkswagen and there are a lot of VW genes in this car” (Hanlon, 2005). Rather than using a metaphor to describe the gene, which was common in the materialistic frame, the gene concept itself was used in a metaphoric way to illustrate the transfer of information and technology. …journalists, striving for a catchy news story, often convert a relativistic message into a deterministic one On the basis of this gene-framing scheme (Table 1), we were able to determine a dominant frame for the gene concept in all 300 articles, which represented the most obvious meaning conveyed by the text, as typically expressed in the heading, and the lead and opening paragraphs. All five frames were present in each of the six national dailies. We found no overall difference between the British and the Norwegian newspapers, although a proper statistical assessment would require a quantitative analysis, which was beyond the scope of this study. Some of the articles also contained a secondary, and occasionally a tertiary, frame; these were less salient and usually emerged further into the article. These were represented by statements, descriptions or voices that seemed to be peripheral, and they either complimented the dominant frame by providing additional information or voiced other perspectives for journalistic balance. Such frame dynamics were particularly evident in a human-interest article about bowel cancer that appeared in The Sun (Hammett, 2006). It began as follows: “Knowing you carry the gene for a deadly disease can feel like a death sentence…” This deterministic framing was substantiated by the phrases “gene for bowel cancer”, “faulty gene” and “bowel cancer gene”. Mid-way through the text, the author introduced the relativistic frame using words including “risk”, “genetic link” and “predisposition”. Finally, environmental factors were mentioned at the end of a short fact file accompanying the article. Still, the overall impression was clearly deterministic, illustrating that the generation of meaning might depend not only on which frames are used, but also on the order in which they are presented. The materialistic frame involves a purely descriptive perspective, which is well known in scientific discourse, but has not been explicitly defined by previous media analyses. It makes no reference to the nature of phenotypic causation, and might often be used as a way of giving support and credibility to other frames. In particular, it might appear in combination with the deterministic frame, as in the following news item in The Sun: “Bald men should blame their mums—for they carry a gene responsible for early hair loss. Scientists found it is carried on the X chromosome, which is passed on from mothers to sons, and explains why many often end up with hairless heads like their maternal grandfathers” (The Sun, 2005). The fact that the gene can be identified on a chromosome as a physical entity therefore serves to reinforce the deterministic framing of the article. The deterministic frame is well known from media analyses and was also evident in our material. It has been widely criticized because of its misleading representation of genetic causation (Hubbard & Wald, 1993; Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Condit et al, 1998; Conrad, 2001; Condit, 2007). Evidence indicates that lay audiences who adopt a deterministic perspective often overestimate the genetic contribution to health and make less effort to prevent disease by changing their lifestyles (Parrott et al, 2004). Still, the deterministic frame is the most succinct and sensational, and is commonly found in tabloid-style reporting. The relativistic frame is generally more scientific, but it might be more difficult to convey as it introduces the challenging concept of genetic risk (Hall et al, 2004), without explaining the underlying principles. Moreover, the difference between the relativistic ‘gene associated with prostate cancer’ and the deterministic ‘gene for prostate cancer’ might seem insignificant unless the reader already has substantial knowledge of genetics. It is therefore not surprising that journalists, striving for a catchy news story, often convert a relativistic message into a deterministic one. The problem with the evolutionary frame, however, is that it demands more insight on the part of the author, as well as the audience… The evolutionary gene frame, to some extent, overlaps the ‘gene–environment interaction’ frame proposed by Condit (2007), although it involves a markedly different perspective. Most importantly, it draws attention to the fundamental connection between the concept of the gene and the principle of evolution. Moreover, it implies a clear demarcation from the relativistic frame, which makes only an indirect reference to the role of environmental factors. The evolutionary frame regards the gene as part of a system. It implies a fundamental understanding of biology and might be particularly important for public understanding of disease. The problem with the evolutionary frame, however, is that it demands more insight on the part of the author, as well as the audience, and might encounter resistance among people who are ignorant of the principle of evolution. In combination, the materialistic, deterministic, relativistic and evolutionary gene frames can be viewed within a hierarchy of genetic understanding. The materialistic frame forms the basic level, establishing the gene as a physical entity. The deterministic and relativistic frames describe the function of the gene, whereas the evolutionary frame puts this function into an environmental, historical or dynamic context. Each level builds on top of the other, and an in-depth understanding of genetics involves the ability to combine the gene frames into a complete picture. However trivial or silly the symbolic frame might seem, its importance should not be underestimated Finally, the symbolic frame puts the gene concept into a social and cultural context. It reflects the fact that the gene has become an integrated part of everyday language that is used as a rhetorical, playful and imaginative symbol. Emphasizing this integration, we found that the gene has also been adopted as a metaphor for the propagation of information and technology. However trivial or silly the symbolic framing might seem, its importance should not be underestimated. As Nelkin & Lindee (1995) argued, it is the combined symbol of the gene that dominates public awareness. Our framing scheme is open to debate; however, it represents a transparent and easy way of classifying gene discourse. It can be applied to the analysis of any type of gene-related communication—including textbooks, classroom education, television programmes and government reports—and it forms a basis for quantitative analysis. One could use it to identify the ‘gene profile’ of a particular newspaper or author or to explore the effects of gene framing on the public understanding of life science in general. Framing of the gene concept has implications for important issues ranging from personal health—such as the risk of breast cancer or heart disease—to international politics—such as stem-cell research or the regulation of genetically modified crops. Assuming that this framing is largely an unconscious process (Entman, 1993), our study may act both as an eye-opener and as a helpful tool for journalists and scientists alike. Acknowledgements We thank T.H. Nielsen and P. Murphy for their helpful advice. Biographies Rebecca CarverRebecca Carver and Jarle Breivik are at the Institute of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway. Ragnar Waldahl is at the Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, Norway. E-mails: [email protected] E-mails:[email protected] Ragnar Waldahl Jarle Breivik References Condit CM (2007) How geneticists can help reporters to get their story right. Nat Rev Genet 8: 815–820CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Condit CM, Ofulue N, Sheedy KM (1998) Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. Am J Hum Genet 62: 979–984CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Condit CM, Ferguson A, Kassel R, Thadhani C, Gooding HC, Parrott R (2001) An exploratory study of the impact of news headlines on genetic determinism. Sci Commun 22: 379–395CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Conrad P (2001) Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult Med Psychiatry 25: 225–247CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Dillner L (2005) Early learning. The Guardian, 22 Jan, p26Google Scholar Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43: 51–58Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Evison S (2003) I love showing off my body in sexy tight gear. The Sun, 25 Feb, p42Google Scholar Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol 95: 1CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY, USA: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar Hall WD, Morley KI, Lucke JC (2004) The prediction of disease risk in genomic medicine. EMBO Rep 5: 22–26Wiley Online LibraryCASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hammett A (2006) 35000 people get bowel cancer every year. The Sun, 21 Sep, p47Google Scholar Hanlon M (2005) Hot spur. The Daily Mail, 20 AugGoogle Scholar Hubbard R, Wald E (1993) Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston, MA, USA: BeaconGoogle Scholar Jha A (2005) Genes cause third of cases: oncologist. The Guardian, 4 Oct, p7Google Scholar Kitzinger J (2007) Framing and frame analysis. In Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, Devereux E (ed), pp 134–161. London, UK: SAGEGoogle Scholar McFadden J (2004) The kindness of strangers. The Guardian, 13 Dec, p16Google Scholar Moss L (2003) What Genes Can't Do. Cambridge, MA, USA; MIT PressGoogle Scholar Nilsen TE (2005) Gener. VG, 29 Oct, p8Google Scholar Nelkin D, Lindee SM (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York, NY, USA: FreemanGoogle Scholar Nisbet MC, Mooney C (2007) Framing science. Science 316: 56CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Parrott R, Silk K, Weiner J, Condit CM, Harris T, Bernhardt J (2004) Deriving lay models of uncertainty about genes' role in illness causation to guide communication about human genetics. J Commun 54: 105–122Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Pearson H (2006) Genetics: what is a gene? Nature 441: 398–401CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Petersen A (2001) Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media. Soc Sci Med 52: 1255–1268CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Petersen A (2002) The new genetics and the media. In The New Genetics and the Public's Health, Bunton R, Petersen A (eds), pp 103–134. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar Shea E (2001) The gene as a rhetorical figure: ‘nothing but a very applicable little word’. Sci Cult 10: 505–529CrossrefGoogle Scholar Stotz K, Griffiths P (2004) Genes: philosophical analyses put to the test. Hist Philos Life Sci 26: 5–28CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stotz KC, Bostanci A, Griffiths PE (2006) Tracking the shift to ‘postgenomics’. Community Genet 9: 190–196CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar The Sun (2003) Born to be gay. The Sun, 21 Oct, p19Google Scholar The Sun (2005) Mums blamed for baldness. The Sun, 21 May, p14Google Scholar Turney J (2005) The sociable gene. EMBO Rep 6: 808–810Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Wilks A (2004) Father of DNA dead. The Sun, 30 Jul, p43Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article Volume 9Issue 101 October 2008In this issue ReferencesRelatedDetailsLoading ...