Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 547-562

  Marcu, Afrodita ^a   Gaspar, Rui ^b   Rutsaert, Pieter ^c   Seibt, Beate ^d   Fletcher, David ^e   Verbeke, Wim ^c   Barnett, Julie ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTO UNIVERSITÁRIO DE LISBOA ISCTE IUL   (Portugal)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^e White October   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

anchoring; commonplaces; metaphors; online deliberation; social representations; synthetic meat

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ANALYSIS; BELGIUM; CONSUMER; DIET; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEAT; PORTUGAL; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; STANDARDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGRICULTURE; BELGIUM; COMMUNICATION; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DIET; FOCUS GROUPS; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GREAT BRITAIN; MEAT; PORTUGAL; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 84923048771     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662514521106     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aizaki H,Sawada M,Sato K.Consumers’ attitudes toward consumption of cloned beef: The impact of exposure to technological information about animal cloning.Appetite. 2011;57 (2): 459-466
2. Bäckström A,Pirttilä-Backman AM,Tuorila H.Dimensions of novelty: A social representation approach to new foods.Appetite. 2003;40 (3): 299-307
3. Baram-Tsabari A,Sethi RJ,Bry L,Yarden A.Using questions sent to an Ask-A-Scientist site to identify children’s interests in science.Science Education. 2006;90 (6): 1050-1072
4. Barnett J,Fife-Schaw C,Shepherd R,Timotijevic L,Fletcher J,Fletcher DOnline Deliberative Engagement: A Pilot Study. London: The Wellcome Trust; 2008:
5. Barnett J,McConnon A,Kennedy J,Raats M,Shepherd R,Verbeke W,Fletcher J,Kuttschreuter M,Lima L,Wills J,Wall P.Development of strategies for effective communication of food risks and benefits across Europe: Design and conceptual framework of the FoodRisC project.BMC Public Health. 2011;11:308
6. Bauer MW,Gaskell G.Towards a paradigm for research on social representations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1999;29 (2): 163-186
7. Braun V,Clarke V.Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3 (2): 77-101
8. Coleman C-L,Ritchie L.Examining metaphors in biopolitical discourse.Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. 2011;7 (1): 29-59
9. Courvoisier N,Clémence A,Green EGT.Man-made black holes and Big Bangs: Diffusion and integration of scientific information into everyday thinking.Public Understanding of Science. 2013;22 (3): 287-303
10. Davies SR.How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk.Futures. 2011;43 (3): 317-326
11. de Barcellos MD,Kügler JO,Grunert KG,Van Wezemael L,Pérez-Cueto FJA,Ueland Ø,Verbeke W.European consumers’ acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study.Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2010;11 (4): 721-732
12. de-Graft Aikins A.Familiarising the unfamiliar: Cognitive polyphasia, emotions and the creation of social representations.Papers on Social Representations. 2012;21 (1): 7.1-7.28
13. Devine-Wright H,Devine-Wright P.Social representations of electricity network technologies: Exploring processes of anchoring and objectification through the use of visual research methods.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2009;48 (2): 357-373
14. Dragojlovic N,Einsiedel E.Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology.Public Understanding of Science. 2013;22 (7): 869-885
15. Falchetti E,Caravita S,Sperduti A.What do laypersons want to know from scientists? An analysis of a dialogue between scientists and laypersons on the web site Scienzaonline.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (4): 489-506
16. Frewer LJ,Bergmann K,Brennan M,Lion R,Meertens R,Rowe G,Siegrist M,Vereijken C.Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies.Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2011;22 (8): 442-456
17. Goodwin JN,Shoulders CW.The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage.Meat Science. 2013;95 (3): 445-450
18. Huxford J.Framing the future: Science fiction frames and the press coverage of cloning.Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 2000;14 (2): 187-199
19. Jha A.Synthetic meat: How the world’s costliest burger made it on to the plate.The Guardian. 2013;:10
20. Joffe H.Social representations and health psychology.Social Science Information. 2002;41 (4): 559-580
21. Jovchelovitch SRepresentations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Deaux KPhilogène G, ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2001:165-182.
22. Kearnes M,Wynne B.On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm.NanoEthics. 2007;1 (2): 131-142
23. Kronberger N,Holtz P,Wagner W.Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: Focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology.Public Understanding of Science. 2012;21 (2): 174-187
24. Lanham RA Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1968:
25. Lassen I.Commonplaces and social uncertainty: Negotiating public opinion.Journal of Risk Research. 2008;11 (8): 1025-1045
26. Macnaghten P,Kearnes MB,Wynne B.Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 268-291
27. Marcu A,Uzzell D,Barnett J.Making sense of unfamiliar risks in the countryside: The case of Lyme disease.Health & Place. 2011;17 (3): 843-850
28. Marková IDialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:
29. Marris C,Wynne B,Simmons P,Weldon SPublic Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Final Report of the PABE Research Project. Lancaster: University of Lancaster; 2001:
30. McKinlay A,Potter J.Social representations: A conceptual critique.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1987;17 (4): 471-487
31. Michael M,Brown N.The meat of the matter: Grasping and judging xenotransplantation.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13 (4): 379-397
32. Moscovici SSocial Representations. Farr RMMoscovici S, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:3-70.
33. Moscovici S.Introductory address to the First International Conference on Social Representations; 1993Ravello; 1993. 160.
34. Myers G.Commonplaces in risk talk: Face threats and forms of interaction.Journal of Risk Research. 2007;10 (3): 285-305
35. Palma-Oliveira JM,Gaspar de Carvalho R,Luis S,Vieira MNanomaterials: Risks and Benefits. Linkov ISteevens J, ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2009:437-463.
36. Post M.Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects.Meat Science. 2012;92 (3): 297-301
37. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 2010;:
38. Rollin F,Kennedy J,Wills J.Consumers and new food technologies.Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2011;22 (2–3): 99-111
39. Rose DQualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. Bauer MWGaskell G, ed. London: SAGE; 2000:246-262.
40. Scheufele D,Lewenstein B.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7 (6): 659-667
41. Shepherd R,Barnett J,Cooper H,Coyle A,Moran-Ellis J,Senior V,Walton C.Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning.Social Science & Medicine. 2007;65 (2): 377-392
42. Siegrist M.Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products.Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2008;19 (11): 603-608
43. Siegrist M,Stampfli N,Kastenholz H,Keller C.Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging.Appetite. 2008;51 (2): 283-290
44. Smith N,Joffe H.How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach.Public Understanding of Science. 2013;22 (1): 16-32
45. Tenbült P,de Vries NK,Dreezens E,Martijn C.Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food.Appetite. 2005;45 (1): 47-50
46. van den Belt H.Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life.NanoEthics. 2009;3 (3): 257-268
47. Would You Eat Synthetic Meat? (2011) National Enabling Technologies Strategy Expert Forum and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Australian Government. 29September. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO9q_paCcWA