ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2018
Dynamics of problem setting and framing in citizen discussions on synthetic biology.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public attitudes to potential synthetic cells applications: Pragmatic support and ethical acceptance.PloS one · 2025Article
- Presenting wicked problems in a science museum: A methodology to study interest from a dynamic perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- A SynBio community comes of age: Political, academical, industrial, and societal developments in the Netherlands.Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2021Article
- Let's (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2020Article
- Meaning of Ambiguity: A Japanese Survey on Synthetic Biology and Genome Editing.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Article
- Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit-Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Article
- Supporting Citizens in Reflection on Synthetic Biology by Means of Video-Narratives.Science communication · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic biology is an emerging scientific field where engineers and biologists design and build biological systems for various applications. Developing synthetic biology responsibly in the public interest necessitates a meaningful societal dialogue. In this article, we argue that facilitating such a dialogue requires an understanding of how people make sense of synthetic biology. We performed qualitative research to unravel the underlying dynamics of problem setting and framing in citizen discussions on synthetic biology. We found that most people are not inherently for or against synthetic biology as a technology or development in itself, but that their perspectives are framed by core values about our relationships with science and technology and that sensemaking is much dependent on the context and general feelings of (dis)content. Given that there are many assumptions focused on a more binary idea of the public's view, we emphasize the need for frame awareness and understanding in a meaningful dialogue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.