Word selection affects perceptions of synthetic biology
© Pearson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 4 July 2011
Accepted: 21 July 2011
Published: 21 July 2011
Members of the synthetic biology community have discussed the significance of word selection when describing synthetic biology to the general public. In particular, many leaders proposed the word "create" was laden with negative connotations. We found that word choice and framing does affect public perception of synthetic biology. In a controlled experiment, participants perceived synthetic biology more negatively when "create" was used to describe the field compared to "construct" (p = 0.008). Contrary to popular opinion among synthetic biologists, however, low religiosity individuals were more influenced negatively by the framing manipulation than high religiosity people. Our results suggest that synthetic biologists directly influence public perception of their field through avoidance of the word "create".
In response to public concern about the production of the first "synthetic cell" in 2010, President Obama instructed the U.S. Bioethics Commission to scrutinize the ethics of synthetic biology . While the commission reported synthetic biology research could continue, they recommended progressing with extreme caution. During this same time, some religious leaders claimed synthetic biology was dangerously close to "pretending to be God". The Italian bishops' legal affairs committee chairman, Bishop Domenico Mogavero, said, "Pretending to be God and parroting his power of creation is an enormous risk that can plunge men into a barbarity." 
Like other technologies, synthetic biology and society profoundly influence each other. The actions of scientists determine the level of public support, and scientists, corporations, and society at large must collaborate and address obstacles at the heart of communication, learning from previous controversial technologies. How does word choice affect public perception of synthetic biology? Previous literature has described the power of word choice as "framing effects" . Nisbet and Scheufule  described frames as being used by three constituencies: 1) "audiences to make sense of and discuss an issue; 2) journalists to craft interesting and appealing news reports; and 3) policymakers to define policy options and reach decisions." Depending on political interests, religion, and gender, etc., people allow frames "to hold particular sway... because frames reduce confusing issues that are remote from most people's direct experiences into manageable packages of understandable information."  When synthetic biologists use the word "creation" to describe their products, some people might find the work to be offensive or blasphemous because of the religious power that term evokes. An article from the British Daily Mail described the production of a "synthetic cell" as the "second genesis" and quoted synthetic biologist Craig Venter as having changed his own perception of life since he essentially, "allowed a new creature to enter the world." A poll associated with the Daily Mail article asked, "Should scientists be allowed to create synthetic life?" Sixty percent of the respondents opposed Venter's research when framed in this way . Similarly, views of adult and embryonic stem cell research are found to be negatively correlated with church attendance (p < 0.01).
Synthetic biology is a young discipline that could better influence its perception by society. To minimize negative perception, investigators might consider using the term "construct" rather than "create" when describing their work. We were surprised to learn that individuals scoring lower in religiosity were more likely to be influence by word choice than those with higher religiosity scores. Contrary to the perception of many synthetic biologists, low religiosity people are more easily swayed by the word "create" and thus investigators should avoid using "create" regardless of the audience.
We thank Todd Eckdahl, Jeff Poet and all members of our joint 2009 iGEM team, and Paul Brantley for help with the figures. This research was supported by the Davidson Research Initiative, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant #52006292) NSF UBM (grant #0733952), and the James G. Martin Genomics Program. The study was granted approval by the Davidson College Internal Review Board (#2009-47).
- Presidential Committee for the Study of Bioethical Issues: New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. [http://www.bioethics.gov/news/] 2010.
- Rizzo Alessandra: Church warns cell scientists not to play God. Salon.com. [http://www.salon.com/news/2010/05/21/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell]
- Entmann RM: Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 1993, 43:51–58.View Article
- Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA: The future of public engagement. The Scientist 2007,21(10):38.
- Cobb MD: Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005,27(2):221–239.View Article
- Macrae F: Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity? [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1279988/Artificial-life-created-Craig-Venter--wipe-humanity.html] The Daily Mail 2010.
- Nisbet MC, Goidel RK: Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science 2007, 16:421–440.View Article
- Wilkes RE, Burnett JJ, Howell RD: On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1986,14(1):47–56.View Article
- Koenig HG, George LK, Peterson BL: Religiosity and remission of depression in medically ill older patients. American Journal of Psychiatry 1998, 155:536–542.
- Tan JHW: Religion and social preferences: An experimental study. Economic Letters 2006, 90:60–67.View Article
- Stewart CO, Dickerson DL, Hotchkiss R: Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Science Communication 2009,30(4):427–452.View Article
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.