Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Nisbet, Matthew ^a   Markowitz, Ezra M ^b,c  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BELIEF; SOCIETY; UNITED STATES; ATTITUDE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHICS; MIDDLE AGED; POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; CULTURE; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCIENCE; STEM CELL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84895861047     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088473     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Fischoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 14033-14039.
2. Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 17: 35-54.
3. Nisbet MC (2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 17: 90-112.
4. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res: 171-192.
5. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4: 91-94.
6. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18: 546-558.
7. Allum N, Sibley E, Sturgis P, Stoneman P (2014) Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Underst Sci, in press.
8. Braman D, Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2: 732.
9. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96: 1767-1778.
10. Abramowitz A (2009) The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 208 p.
11. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2012) The polarization paradox: Why hyperpartisanship promotes conservatism and undermines liberalism. Breakthrough J 3: 55-69. Available: http://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-3/the- polarizationparadox/. Accessed 2014 Jan 20.
12. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan JE, Moy P, Brossard D, et al. (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A Media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communic Res 5: 584-608.
13. Nisbet MC (2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 17: 90-112.
14. Nisbet MC, Goidel RK (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Underst Sci 16: 421-440.
15. Bolsen T, Druckman JN, Cook FL (2013) How frames can stunt support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status quo bias. APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id= 2301079. Accessed 2014 Jan 22.
16. Bolsen T, Druckman J, Cook FL (2013) The effects of the politicization of science on public support for emergent technologies. Department of Political Science, Northwestern University. Available: http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/ publications/docs/workingpapers/2013/IPR-WP-13-11.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jan 22.
17. Brossard D, Nisbet MC (2007) Deference to scientific authority Among a low information public: Understanding American views about agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res,: 24-52.
18. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 592 p.
19. Popkin SL (1991) The reasoning voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 332 p.
20. Haidt J (2012) The Righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Allen Lane. 528 p.
21. Levendusky M (2009) The Partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and Conservatives became republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. 200 p.
22. Nisbet MC, Becker AB (2014) The Polls-Trends: Public opinion about embryonic stem cell research across U.S. elections and legislative debates, 2002 to 2010. Public Opin Q, in press.
23. Hillygus DS, Shields TG (2009) The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 280 p.
24. Becker AB, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Gunther AC (2010) Getting citizens involved: How controversial policy debates stimulate issue participation during a political campaign. Int J Public Opin Res, 22: 181-203.
25. Clifford S, Jerit J (2014) How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. J Polit, 75: 659-671, in press.
26. Bubela T, Li MD, Hafez M, Bieber M, Atkins H (2012) Is Belief Larger than Fact: Expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research. BMC Med 10:133.
27. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harv Int J Press/Polit 8: 36-70. (Pubitemid 36719570)
28. Price V, Nir L, Capella JN (2005) Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opin Q 69: 179-212. (Pubitemid 41240499)
29. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 57: 9-20. (Pubitemid 46322687)
30. Scheufele BT, Scheufele DA (2010) Of spreading activation, applicability, and schemas: Conceptual distinctions and their operational implications for measuring frames and framing effects. In: D'Angelo P, Kuypers JA, editors. New York: Routledge. pp. 110-134.
31. Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F (1997) Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Chicago, IL: Chicago Academy of Sciences. 140 p.
32. Pardo R, Calvo F (2008) Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Sci Commun 30:8-47.
33. Miller JD, Kimmel L (2001) Biomedical communications: Purposes, audiences, and strategies. New York: Academic Press. 458 p.
34. Goidel K, Nisbet MC (2006) Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over stem cell research and cloning. Polit Behav, 2: 175-192.
35. Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC, Brossard D (2003) Pathways to participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. Int J Public Opin Res :300-324.
36. Ellison CG, Musick MA (1995) Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science. Rev Relig Res 36: 245-62.
37. Bowers J, Drake KW (2005) EDA for HLM: Visualization when probabilistic inference fails. Polit Analysis: 301-326. (Pubitemid 41309207)
38. Sarewitz D (2009) Restoring science to its rightful place? Issues Sci Technol, 4: 89-104.
39. McKibben B (2004) Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. 288 p.
40. Park A (2012) The stem cell hope: How stem cell medicine can change our lives. New York: Plume. 339 p.
41. Caulfield T, Bubela T (2007) Why a criminal ban?: Analyzing the arguments against somatic cell nuclear transfer in the Canadian Parliamentary debate. Am J Bioeth 7: 51-71.
42. Critchley CR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci 17: 309-327.
43. Caulfield T, Condit C (2012) Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics 15: 209-217.
44. Master Z, Reznik D (2013) Hype and public trust in science. Sci Eng Ethics 19: 321-335.
45. Maibach E, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Mertz CK (2011) Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One 6: e17571.
46. Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G (2010) Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10: 299. Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/ 1471-2458/10/299. Accessed 2014 Jan 20.
47. Myers T, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate Change. Clim Change, 1105-1121.
48. Hartings M, Fahy D (2011) Communicating chemistry for public engagement. Nat Chem 3: 674-677.
49. Nisbet MC, Fahy D (2013) Bioethics in popular science: Evaluating the media impact of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. BMC Med Ethics 14: 10. Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/14/10. Accessed 20 January 2014.
50. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Crichtley C, et al. (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol 27: 514-518.
51. Illes J, Moser MA, McCormick JB, Racine E, Blakeslee S, et al. (2009) Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nat Rev Neurosci 11: 61-69.