Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Biotechnology Communication Needs a Rethink


Affiliations
1 DBT Communication Cell, Vigyan Prasar, Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi 110 003, India
 

Biotechnology, like any other stream of science becomes irrelevant if it cannot be used by society at the right time. To get people to use biotechnology it should be acceptable, understandable and accessible to them. Herein lies the role of biotechnology communication. Making biotechnology relevant through communication is becoming more and more crucial to make people realize the importance of solutions to multifarious problems that biotechnology has to offer like food security, health, environmental problems and so on. This article underscores the communication approaches which need to be taken to reach that target.

Keywords

Biotechnology Communication, Media Coverage, Society, Science Communicators.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Nelkin, D., Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, W.H. Freeman, New York, 1987.

  • Nisbet, M. C. and Scheufele, D. A., What’s next for science communication? promising directions and lingering distractions. Am. J. Bot., 2009, 96(10), 1767–1778.

  • Listerman, T., Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: international comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understand. Sci., 16 September 2008.

  • Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L. and Zakharova, L., Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understand. Sci., 2007, 16(2), 183–203.

  • Tsegay, B. A. and Tamiru, A. B., Biotechnology: science versus value – Laden decisions. Open J. Philos., 2014, 4, 151–156.

  • Nattrass, N., The Moral Economy of AIDS in South Africa, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2004, p. 224; ISBN:0521548640.

  • Deer, B., MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism. The Sunday Times, February 2009.

  • Billett, S., Dividing climate change: global warming in the Indian mass media. Climatic Change, published online 5 June 2009.

  • Bindoft, N. L. et al., Detection and attribution of climate change: from global to regional climate change. The Physical Science Basis, 2013, 869–931.

  • Boykoff, M., Indian media representations of climate change in a threatened journalistic ecosystem. Climatic Change, 2010, 99(1), 17–25.

  • Bruggemann, M. and Engesser, S., Climate journalists as interpretive community: identifying transnational frames of climate change, Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century, National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century, 2013.

  • McCright, A. and Dunlap, R., Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Soc. Problems, 2000, 47(4), 499–522.

  • Druckman, A. and Jackson, T., Household energy consumption in the UK: a highly geographically and socio-economically disaggregated model. Energy Policy, 2008, 36(8), 3167–3182.

  • Fichtenberg, C. M. and Glantz, S. A., Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. Br. Med. J., 2002, 325(7357), 188.

  • Samuel Craig, C., MacCann, J. M., Assessing communication effects on energy conservation. J. Consum. Res., 1978, 5(2), 82–88.

  • Trench, B., Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. Communicating Science in Social Contexts, Springer, Netherlands, 2008, pp. 119–135.

  • Dickson, D., The case for a deficit model of science communication. In Paper Presented to PCST Working Symposium, Beijing, June 2005.

  • Burns, T., Connor, D. J. O. and Stocklmayer, S. M., Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understand. Sci., 2003, 12, 183–202.

  • Secko, D. M., Amend, E. and Friday, T., Four models of science journalism: a synthesis and practical assessment. J. Pract., 2013, 7(1), 2013, 62–81.

  • Bultitude, K., The why and how of science communication. In Science Communication (ed. Rosulek, P.), European Commission, Pilsen, Czech Republic, 2011.

  • Einsiedel, E., Understanding ‘publics’ in public understanding of science. In Between Understanding and Trust – The Public, Science and Technology (eds Dierkes, M. and von Grote, C.), Routledge, London, 2000, pp. 205–215.

  • Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A., Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am. J. Sociol., 1989, 95(3), 1–37.

  • Nisbet, M. C. and Lewenstein, B. V., Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. Sci. Commun., 2002, 23(4), 359–391.

  • Boykoff, M., The real swindle. Nature Reports Climate Change, published online 21 February 2008.

  • Boykoff, M. T and Boykoff, J. M., Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 2007, 36(6), 1190–1204.


Abstract Views: 334

PDF Views: 118




  • Biotechnology Communication Needs a Rethink

Abstract Views: 334  |  PDF Views: 118

Authors

Archita Bhatta
DBT Communication Cell, Vigyan Prasar, Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi 110 003, India
Kinkini Dasgupta Misra
DBT Communication Cell, Vigyan Prasar, Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi 110 003, India

Abstract


Biotechnology, like any other stream of science becomes irrelevant if it cannot be used by society at the right time. To get people to use biotechnology it should be acceptable, understandable and accessible to them. Herein lies the role of biotechnology communication. Making biotechnology relevant through communication is becoming more and more crucial to make people realize the importance of solutions to multifarious problems that biotechnology has to offer like food security, health, environmental problems and so on. This article underscores the communication approaches which need to be taken to reach that target.

Keywords


Biotechnology Communication, Media Coverage, Society, Science Communicators.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv110%2Fi4%2F573-578