Communication patterns, actors and misinformation on genome-engineering biotechnologies in New Zealand’s public arena

The research reported on here examined the communications in the public arena, in New Zealand, regarding genome-engineering biotechnologies (GEB). The arrival of CRISPER techniques has reopened conversations about how to regulate GEB. Portrayals by journalists, officials and their sources may shape public stances on GEB science and application and the preferred regulatory paradigms. Investigations of GEB representations in the public arena included news media, political documents and official advisory reports. A corpus of 87 items were selected, published between 2017 and 2023. The first question addressed was: (RQ1) What opportunities are afforded to actors holding a range of positions regarding GEB, to present views in the public arena? The findings indicated a disproportionate representation of pro-GEB views, especially vested-interest scientists developing genome-engineered organisms. Hence, the follow-up questions focused on portrayals by pro-GEB actors and journalists, asking: (RQ2) What is the scope of communications by journalists and pro-GEB actors? (RQ3) What is the quality of communications by pro-GEB actors and journalists? By applying an inductive content analysis methodology, the study identified 21 framing themes across three domains: regulations (47.5% of communication units), science and applications (44.2%) and public consultations (8.3%). While only five themes were found to be built on misinformation, they represented 47.2% of the key communications in the corpus. Misinformation was operationalised as errors-of-facts, taking three forms: omissions, misrepresentations or falsehoods. The misinformation identified regarded mostly representations of science and applications (safety, benefits), but affected also portrayals of regulatory regimes domestically/overseas, and GEB commercialisation globally.