The Uproar Over Gene-Edited Babies
A Semantic Network Analysis of CRISPR on Twitter
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21192425 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Carlo Calabrese (0000-0001-6216-0489, University of California, Davis, corresponding author), Jieyu Ding (0000-0003-2085-5383, University of California, Davis), Benjamin Millam (Department of Communication, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA), Benjamin J Millam (University of California, Davis), G A Barnett (0000-0002-7511-1886, University of California, Davis) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 7 |
| Pages | 954-970 |
| Publication date | 2020-10-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1752-4032 • E-ISSN: 1752-4040 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/17524032.2019.1699135 |
| OpenAlex | W2994719636 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 38 |
CRISPR-Cas9, a recent gene editing technology, has potential to greatly impact medicine, agriculture, and the environment; therefore, it is increasingly important to understand the public’s perceptions surrounding this technology. This study examined the main themes of CRISPR during a nine-month period on Twitter through semantic network analysis. Three additional networks (before, initial, and after-event stages) were created to understand the effects of the “CRISPR babies” news event. Four themes emerged in the overall network: (1) research/applications of CRISPR, (2) the “CRISPR babies” event, (3) agricultural regulations for biotechnology, and (4) advancements in muscular dystrophy research. The “CRISPR babies” news story dominated the initial and after-event stage network clusters, indicating major events may impact how users discuss socio-scientific issues in online media. The sentiment surrounding CRISPR was mixed, demonstrating concerns over this technology. This study reveals the potential of social media as a tool to understand public discussions around new technologies
Biology · CRISPR · Data science · Gene · Internet privacy · Social media · World Wide Web · Computer Science · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Genetics
How does the French press handle a controversial biotechnology? A psychosocial study of media coverage of human genome editing
Narrating Security, Preserving Identity
Beyond virtual boundaries
Excavating the social representations and perceived barriers of organ donation in China over the past decade
Exploring public perceptions of the Covid-19 vaccine online from a cultural perspective
Stigmatization of mpox and the MSM community on Twitter
Testing the Predictive Power of a Cognitive-Structural Approach to Message Design
A semantic network approach to measuring sentiment
Societal Debates About Emerging Genetic Technologies
Siloed discourses
Changing Social Representations and Agenda Interactions of Gene Editing After Crises
YouTube Comments on Gene-Edited Babies
The Chaffee principle
Public attitudes and sentiments toward ChatGPT in China
Does creating the perfect child mean enforcing or dismantling normative gender stereotypes? Evidence from an interactive virtual genetic engineering exhibit
Saw It on Facebook
Social Network Analysis
The magical number 4 in short-term memory
Text Mining Infrastructure in R
ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software
Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis
Science on Television in the 21st Century
Agenda-setting
Gephi
Fast unfolding of communities in large networks
Environment as Politics
Figuring Out #Fukushima
Microblogging and nanotweets
Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet’s potential for closing them
News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
The magical number seven, plus or minus two
Online Representations of “Genome Editing” Uncover Opportunities for Encouraging Engagement
Scientific Uncertainty in the Press
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,67 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |