Before and after the Chinese gene-edited human babies: Multiple discourses of gene editing on social media

Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing

In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts' input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values-specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics' values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.

Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China

Gene editing contributes to enhancing food security through the creation of novel foods. However, public perception of gene-edited (GE) foods is crucial to their acceptance and adoption. This study expanded the knowledge-attitude-practice model and constructed an integrated framework comprising four dimensions: demographic factors, scientific literacy and beliefs, social trust, and perceptions of gene technology, aimed at explaining the public's attitudes toward GE foods. A questionnaire survey was conducted (N = 649), revealing a positive attitude toward GE foods, with over 80% expressing a certain willingness to pay (WTP) for them. Factors such as income level, subjective knowledge, scientific beliefs, trust in scientists, trust in government, and trust in national technological capabilities and perceived benefits positively correlated with WTP. Conversely, objective knowledge, perceived risks, and perceived ethical concerns were negatively correlated with WTP. The impact of objective knowledge on attitudes toward GE foods demonstrated a significant, nonlinear relationship. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the Chinese public currently exhibits relatively low trust in national technological capabilities, necessitating vigilance against the emergence of conspiracy theories akin to those surrounding genetically modified foods. This research contributes theoretical insights into the public communication of GE foods.

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety. Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions. Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

Gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability in social and traditional media than GMOs

While GMOs have been the subject of negative discourse over a long time period, it is possible that newer breeding technologies like gene editing are viewed more favorably. We present data for a 5-year period between January 2018 and December 2022, showing that in content specific to agricultural biotechnology, gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability ratings than GMOs in both social and traditional English-language media. Our sentiment analysis shows that favorability is especially positive in social media, with close to 100% favorability achieved in numerous monthly values throughout our 5 years of analysis. We believe that the scientific community can therefore be cautiously optimistic based on current trends that gene editing will be accepted by the public and be able to achieve its promise of making a substantial contribution to future food security and environmental sustainability worldwide. However, there are some recent indications of more sustained downward trends, which may be a cause for concern.

The emerging scientific public sphere in China's digital economy: Weibo discussions on facial recognition technology

The present study investigates the Chinese public's perception toward the widely adopted (and often accused of misuse) technology of face recognition. Through topic modeling and a social network analysis of 151,654 Weibo posts, we examine the "content dimension" and the "actor dimension" of civic discussions on facial recognition technology. Our results demonstrate that there is rising social concern and skepticism directed at the commercial use of this biodata-collected technology in China's cyberspace, despite the state's adoption, supervision, and regulation of facial recognition technology being broadly granted. Moreover, while our findings illustrate an extent of openness and equality within the public debates on facial recognition technology, they also show the Chinese government becoming an important "interlocutor" within the said debates, with discursive engagement from industry and academia largely marginalized. Drawing on the results, we suggest that further investigation into the formation of China's scientific public sphere should be located within the broader context of China's vision of a centrally planned digital economy.

The Gene-Edited Babies Controversy: Reactions in the Scientific Community, Social Media, and the Press

This chapter analyzes how the gene-edited babies controversy sparked by He Jiankiu has unfolded in three spheres: the scientific community, the press, and social media. Across these spheres, there is a multilayered debate: scientific and technical aspects are discussed, as much as legal frameworks, ethics, responsibilities, politics, and social issues. But beyond these similarities, there are three notable differences. The first concerns (geo)politics. At the 2018 international summit on human gene editing, we observe efforts of self-regulation and demarcation to protect the moral and epistemic authority of the scientific community and to critique - and eventually "excommunicate" - He Jiankui. While the 2018 summit drew a clear line between "good science" and "bad science," in the press, the dichotomy is rather expressed in terms of "good countries" versus "bad countries" regarding their ethics and regulation (a dichotomy much less visible in social media). The second difference concerns emotions and affect. Despite the scientific community's strong condemnation of He Jiankui, it nevertheless expressed its criticisms in an unemotional and factual way. In the press and social media, however, various emotions are visible - fear, anger, pride, hope, rejoicing, disgust, and shame - and the discussion is more dramatic. Third, the use of positive terms is notable: while virtually absent in the scientific sphere and the press, there are positive assessments in social media.

Event history analysis of the duration of online public opinions regarding major health emergencies

Based on event history analysis, this study examined the survival distribution of the duration of online public opinions related to major health emergencies and its influencing factors. We analyzed the data of such emergencies (N = 125) that took place in China during a period of 10 years (2012–2021). The results of the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the average duration of online public opinions regarding health emergencies is 43 days, and the median is 19 days, which dispels the myth of the “Seven-day Law of Propagation.” Furthermore, the duration of online public opinions can be divided into three stages: the rapid decline stage (0–50 days), the slowdown stage (51–200 days), and the disappearing stage (after 200 days). In addition, the type of event, and the volume of both social media discussion and traditional media coverage all had significant impacts on the duration. Our findings provide practical implications for the carrying out of targeted and stage-based governance of public opinions.

More engagement but less participation: China's alternative approach to public communication of science and technology

This essay critically traces the development of public engagement with science in China in the past decade and relevant scholarly studies. While confirming the country's tremendous progress in the field achieved either by official efforts or by social media empowerment, it argues that science communication advances have not realized the public engagement with science ideal of enabling the public to participate in constructive dialogue for policymaking. However, citing recent studies on the specifics of China's science communication, ranging from scientists' reliance on their organization, to the consequences of attitudinal polarization, this article appeals to an alternative research agenda to broaden our understanding of the dynamic science communication process in the world's most populous nation.

Communicating CRISPR: Challenges and opportunities in engaging the public

CRISPR technologies are advancing at a dizzying pace, and emerging cultural, sociopolitical, ethical, and legal implications continue to pose new challenges for public engagement. Recent calls for public engagement and dialogue on CRISPR applications stress the importance of nuanced thinking and responsible communication. In this chapter, we review public opinion research and find that a comprehensive and clear picture of global views on CRISPR is missing but is necessary to build the foundation for effective public engagement programs. We recommend community-based-participatory research as an inclusive and effective framework for shared knowledge production and decision-making practices for scientific experts and science communicators to engage in genuine and meaningful dialogue with community members in making informed consideration for important value-laden decisions. In response to the politicization of science, this chapter offers strategic communication techniques that can help those facilitating public engagement of CRISPR-based technologies keep cognitive biases, such as identity protective cognition, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias, at bay.