From lab to fork? Press coverage and public (mis)perception of crop biotechnology in Uganda

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study explores the structure of the controversy surrounding genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) in Uganda. It focuses on how two local newspapers, the New Vision andthe Daily Monitor, cover the subject, and on the public perception regarding a contested science(biotechnology), promoted and de-campaigned in the same pages simultaneously. The aim wasto establish the different ways in which media coverage of biotechnology influences publicperception of its products, especially crop (food) GMOs, in Uganda. It draws on the sciencein-society model, the public sphere and the media logic theoretical framework as a lens forunderstanding Uganda's case in this global debate. The study used content analysis, a face-tofacesurvey and in-depth interviews to obtain data and analyse Uganda's intricate situation interms of having GMOs on the market in the absence of an enabling law to commercialise whatis in the country's laboratories (labs).The key findings indicate that the coverage and perception of GMOs are shaped by the contoursof capitalism, mistrust in government institutions and outright misinformation, all tied topersonal and societal beliefs. The controversy is laced with discrimination, noticeable in thesharp-tongued accusations and counter-accusations. The debate has been described as a'distortion, 'deception, 'complexity, 'confrontation, 'murky and an 'opportunisticinteraction. In the two newspapers analysed for the purposes of this study, biotechnology waslargely covered by freelancers, who were caught between evidence-based science reporting andproviding a voice to all stakeholders on a subject newspaper editors consider peripheral in thelight of audience and advertiser flight. Biotechnology is politicised to make it sellable.Legislation dominates the fault-finding elitist debate, driven mostly by events in othercountries. Men are six times more likely to be used as sources in stories on biotechnology, butwomen's chances of being quoted more than triple when they are quoted in the same story withmen. Experts have limited impact as both scientists, and non-(pseudo) scientists are majorsources of information on biotechnology, a mark of weakened cultural authority of science inthe post-expert age. Biotechnology is a controversial subject in the newsroom and in society.Newspapers are part of the chain link for creating awareness, educating, sustaining debate andgenerating an 'issues culture'. The scientist-journalists' relationship determines howbiotechnology is covered. Ethics, health, patents, contamination, sustainability andbioterrorism are risk concerns. Biotechnology remains a fulcrum for scientific, cultural,political and economic arguments. The debate on GMOs is also a clash of traditions betweenconservationists and their pro-GMO opponents. The youth are more likely to oppose GMOs ina debate from which farmers are hardly represented. There is stigmatisation of informationsources, and yet a change in source of information and increase in knowledge are more likelyto have a negative impact on individuals' perceptions of the risks of GMOs. Public desire forface-to-face engagements with scientists is increasing, even though scientists' technicalopinions seem to be an inconveniencing luxury in the polarised debate. This study births aneconomic-media bicycle-chain model to tentatively explain the key issues in the debate.The study recommends the use of training in science communication to jump-start publicengagement with biotechnology and other science subjects by inspiring academic involvement,increasing scientists' branding, promoting scientific culture and stimulating publicparticipation. The use of edutainment images/visuals in science communication could enhancediscussions and weave science into the fabric of citizens' day-to-day life as a form ofaccountability to the taxpayers who fund research. In addition, communicators should usetraditional and digital media to harvest ideas to organise content, report about and engage withexperts and their audience on new styles of storytelling that can be adopted to pave the way fordialogue on biotechnology and other science-related topics. Further, the study recommends theintegration of a BrainLab in science institutions' curriculum to equip future researchers withthe creative communication skills to engage the media, policymakers and the public, asresearchers get credit for mentoring their students in such outreaches; researchers can also getinput in such forums through crowdsourcing and feedback for feedforward in future research.Such an approach is expected to promote team science communication and prevent sciencefrom getting lost through translation.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University