Online Representations of “Genome Editing” Uncover Opportunities for Encouraging Engagement: A Semantic Network Analysis

Genome editing is an emerging socio-scientific issue. This study uses semantic network analysis to determine the concepts and frames the public is exposed to when seeking information about “genome editing” in Wikipedia and Google. Four frames were identified in Wikipedia: (1) methodology/terminology, (2) applications, (3) common approaches, and (4) DNA repair mechanisms. Three frames were identified in the Google webpages: (1) scientific contributions, (2) applications, and (3) methodology/terminology. Both representations of genome editing focused on technical information rather than social concerns. Most of the words in both networks were neutral in sentiment, suggesting an opportunity for encouraging engagement around this technology.

[1]  H. P. Peters.  Scientific Sources and the Mass Media: Forms and Consequences of Medialization , 2012 .

[2]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[3]  R. Prather,et al.  Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[4]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  U.S. attitudes on human genome editing , 2017, Science.

[5]  Yanpeng Wang,et al.  Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  Andrew G. West,et al.  Wikipedia and Medicine: Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[7]  M. Franzen.  Making Science News: The Press Relations of Scientific Journals and Implications for Scholarly Communication , 2012 .

[8]  Peter Weingart,et al.  Science and the media , 1998 .

[9]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Mapping Neuroscientists’ Perceptions of the Nature and Effects of Public Visibility , 2016 .

[10]  G. Barnett,et al.  Search term Valence HPV vaccine risks Negative HPV vaccination risks Negative HPV immunization risks Negative Human papillomavirus vaccine risks Negative Human papillomavirus vaccination risks Negative Human papillomavirus immunization risks Negative Gardasil risks Negative Cervarix risks Negative V , 2015 .

[11]  D. Brossard.  New media landscapes and the science information consumer , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  R. Blendon,et al.  The Public and the Gene-Editing Revolution. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  F. Gonon,et al.  Scientific Uncertainty in the Press: How Newspapers Describe Initial Biomedical Findings , 2018 .

[14]  M. Jacomy,et al.  ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  George A. Barnett,et al.  The world is not flat: Evaluating the inequality in global information gatekeeping through website co-mentions , 2017 .

[16]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, 1989-1998. A content analysis of conditions, targets, inducements, and appeals. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[17]  J. Doudna,et al.  The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9 , 2014, Science.

[18]  Jon Cohen.  Round one of CRISPR patent legal battle goes to the Broad Institute , 2017 .

[19]  Weirui Wang,et al.  Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[20]  M S Wilkes,et al.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact, and implications. , 2000, Health affairs.

[21]  H. Greely,et al.  CRISPR Critters and CRISPR Cracks , 2015, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[22]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing as a theory of media effects , 1999 .

[23]  Vivienne Waller,et al.  Not just information: Who searches for what on the search engine Google? , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  G. Barnett,et al.  Semantic Network Analysis Reveals Opposing Online Representations of the Search Term “GMO” , 2017, Global challenges.

[25]  Matthias Egger,et al.  What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  V. Torre,et al.  Public views on gene editing and its uses , 2017, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  Paul D'Angelo,et al.  News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman , 2002 .

[28]  Sara Reardon,et al.  Leukaemia success heralds wave of gene-editing therapies , 2015, Nature.

[29]  Petroc Sumner,et al.  Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News , 2016, PloS one.

[30]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Science, New Media, and the Public , 2013, Science.

[31]  Yasemin Saplakoglu.  New gene drive technology could wipe out malaria, but is it safe? , 2017 .

[32]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[33]  Jocelyn Kaiser.  A human has been injected with gene-editing tools to cure his disabling disease. Here’s what you need to know , 2017 .

[34]  M. Spalding,et al.  High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.