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

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Nisbet M;Nisbet M; Markowitz EM; Markowitz EM; Markowitz EM
  • Source:
    PloS one [PLoS One] 2014 Feb 18; Vol. 9 (2), pp. e88473. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Feb 18 (Print Publication: 2014).
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
      Culture* ; Politics* ; Public Opinion* ; Science*; Biomedical Research/*ethics; Adult ; Attitude ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Educational Status ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Public Policy ; Stem Cell Research/ethics ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States
    • Abstract:
      As social scientists have investigated the political and social factors influencing public opinion in science-related policy debates, there has been growing interest in the implications of this research for public communication and outreach. Given the level of political polarization in the United States, much of the focus has been on partisan differences in public opinion, the strategies employed by political leaders and advocates that promote those differences, and the counter-strategies for overcoming them. Yet this focus on partisan differences tends to overlook the processes by which core beliefs about science and society impact public opinion and how these schema are often activated by specific frames of reference embedded in media coverage and popular discourse. In this study, analyzing cross-sectional, nationally representative survey data collected between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the relative influence of political partisanship and science-related schema on Americans' support for embryonic stem cell research. In comparison to the influence of partisan identity, our findings suggest that generalized beliefs about science and society were more chronically accessible, less volatile in relation to media attention and focusing events, and an overall stronger influence on public opinion. Classifying respondents into four unique audience groups based on their beliefs about science and society, we additionally find that individuals within each of these groups split relatively evenly by partisanship but differ on other important dimensions. The implications for public engagement and future research on controversies related to biomedical science are discussed.
    • References:
      Am J Bot. 2009 Oct;96(10):1767-78. (PMID: 21622297)
      BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Feb 28;14:10. (PMID: 23446115)
      BMC Public Health. 2010 Jun 01;10:299. (PMID: 20515503)
      Public Underst Sci. 2008 Jul;17(3):309-27. (PMID: 19069082)
      Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jan;11(1):61-9. (PMID: 19953102)
      Nat Chem. 2011 Aug 23;3(9):674-7. (PMID: 21860452)
      BMC Med. 2012 Nov 06;10:133. (PMID: 23131007)
      Nat Nanotechnol. 2009 Feb;4(2):91-4. (PMID: 19197309)
      Am J Bioeth. 2007 Feb;7(2):51-61. (PMID: 17366198)
      Public Underst Sci. 2014 Oct;23(7):833-49. (PMID: 23838683)
      Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(3-4):209-17. (PMID: 22488464)
      Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Jun;19(2):321-35. (PMID: 22045550)
      PLoS One. 2011 Mar 10;6(3):e17571. (PMID: 21423743)
      Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3:14033-9. (PMID: 23942125)
      Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Jun;27(6):514-8. (PMID: 19513051)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20140222 Date Completed: 20150113 Latest Revision: 20211021
    • Publication Date:
      20240628
    • Accession Number:
      PMC3928253
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0088473
    • Accession Number:
      24558393