바이오케크놀로지(생명공학)이라는 용어 속에 담긴 이미지는 긍정적인 이미지입니다.
이것은 유전자조작 업계와 그를 후원하는 미국 정부의 홍보전략이 담긴 용어이도 합니다.
이 논문은 유전자조작 업계의 그러한 홍보전략을 엿볼 수 있는 자료입니다.

===================== (이 글은 참고용으로 제가 작성한 것입니다.) ===========

일부 언론과 전문가들은 광우병은 과학적 용어가 아니기 때문에 우 해면상 뇌증(BSE)이라는 전문 용어를 사용해야 한다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 광우병이나 우 해면상 뇌증은 모두 원인을 모른 상태에서 눈에 보이는 증상을 그럴듯하게 표현한 것에 불과할 뿐이다. 다시 말해 불확실성에 대한 대중적 표현과 전문가적 표현은 실질적으로 크게 차이가 없다고 볼 수 있다.

이와 비슷한 사례는 조류 독감과 조류 인플루엔자(AI), 유전자 조작 식품(GMO)과 생명 공학(Bio-technology)과 같은 용어 사용에서도 찾아 볼 수 있다. 정부와 기업은 대중적으로 널리 쓰이고 있는 ‘조류 독감’이라는 용어는 비과학적 용어이기 때문에 ‘조류 인플루엔자(AI)’라는 용어를 쓸 것을 언론에 권장해왔다. 그러나 인플루엔자(Influenza)의 어원은 이탈리아 어로 ‘추위의 영향(influenza di freddo)’이라는 뜻이다. 대중은 독감이 겨울의 추운 바람이나 봄의 차가운 기운 때문에 발생한다고 믿어 왔다. 따라서 독감과 인플루엔자는 모두 불확실성을 대중적 용어와 전문적 용어로 비슷하게 표현한 것일 뿐 어느 것이 더 과학적이라고 단정적으로 이야기할 수 없다.

실제로 정부와 기업이 대중들이 쉽게 이해하기 힘든 용어로 병명을 붙이는 이유는 바로 경제적인 이유 때문이다. 지난 2005년 11월, 국회에서 있었던 조류 독감 토론에서 모 교수는 “일부 전문가 및 매스컴에서 아직까지도 조류 독감이라고 부르고 있는데, 조류 인플루엔자로 해야 한다. 왜냐하면, 조류 독감이라고 했을 경우 일반 국민이 갖게 되는 공포심은 자칫 가금(닭, 오리) 산업, 나아가서 국내 농식품 산업 전반에 좋지 않은 영향을 미칠 수도 있기 때문이다.”라며 속마음을 솔직하게 드러내기도 했다.

GMO는 유전자(Genetically)를 변형시킨(Modified) 유기체(Organism)라는 뜻이다. 그런데 대중들이 유전자 조작이라는 용어에 부정적인 인식을 가지고 있기 때문에 정부와 기업은 새로운 홍보 전략을 세웠다. 기업의 후원을 받은 소비자심리학 전문가들은 유전자조작, 유전자공학, 생명공학 등의 용어들에 대한 소비자들의 인식과 수용태도를 조사했다. 그 결과 소비자들에게 긍정적 인식을 줄 수 있는 생명공학(Bio-technology)이란 용어를 찾아낸 것이다. ‘바이오테크놀로지’라는 말은 1917년 헝가리 공학자인 카를 이레키가 처음 사용했는데, 1980년대 들어서 유전자조작 식품이 상업화된 이후 새롭게 주목을 받는 용어가 되었다. 이제 정부와 기업에게는 전문가들을 동원해 유전자 조작 식품이라는 용어는 부정적인 뉘앙스의 비과학적인 용어이기 때문에 생명 공학이라는 가치중립적인 전문 용어를 사용하자고 언론과 대중을 유혹하는 일만 남게 된 것이다. 하지만 곰곰이 생각해 보면 유전자를 변형시키고 조작하는 기술을 통해 새로운 동물, 식물, 미생물 같은 유기체를 만들어 내는 기술은 생명 공학이라는 용어보다는 유전자 조작이라는 용어가 더 잘 어울린다는 생각이다. 왜냐하면 때로는 가치 중립적인 용어가 새로운 과학 기술이나 질병의 위험이나 본질을 은폐하는 역할을 할 수도 있기 때문이다.

===========================================================

Biotechnology: What’s in a Name?

A Paper Presented to the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists
Agricultural Communications Section
Mobile, AL
February 2003

Jefferson D. Miller
Assistant Professor
University of Arkansas

Mamane Annou
Research Associate
University of Arkansas

Eric J. Wailes
Professor
University of Arkansas

출처 : http://agnews.tamu.edu/saas/2003/miller_.htm

Background

One of the most significant dilemmas among agricultural communications researchers and practitioners lately is how best to inform and educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. As with previous technological advances of national and international importance involving public perceptions of risk, mass media play an important role in the public?s attitude regarding agricultural biotechnology. Hoban and Kendall (1996) advised that public communication and education is especially vital to public acceptability of agricultural biotechnology because people perceive the technology to affect the food they eat.

Researchers internationally in both academe and industry have been working on this communications dilemma since the mid-1980s. Survey and focus group research to determine public opinions about biotechnology-related issues has been common and has served to guide public communications and education efforts about biotechnology in the food and agriculture industry. This body of research points to two important premises: (1) Mass media play a key role in developing public opinion regarding biotechnology (Gaskell et al., 1999; Gunter, Kinderlerer, & Beyleveld, 1999; Priest, 2000; IFIC, 2001, Marks, 2001); and (2) Though both consumers and journalists are becoming more informed (IFIC, 2001; Vestal and Briers, 2000), they generally have limited knowledge on which they can form their own attitudes about biotechnology, so they rely on peripheral cues to help in forming opinions (Wasnik and Kim, 2001). This second premise conforms to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Persuasion developed by Petty and Cacioppo (Nai-Hwa, 2001).

The ELM demonstrates a commonly applied theory of information processing and persuasion that when consumers can?t or won?t make decisions based on a sound understanding of a new technology, they resort to peripheral cues. These cues are small bits of information not necessarily related to scientific facts about the technology but nonetheless memorable and understandable to the lay consumer. The simplicity of the cues makes them easy to apply in the opinion-forming process.

In the case of biotechnology, one key peripheral cue for consumers may be the connotations associated with the name of the technology. In other words, as Wasnik and Kim (2001) suggest, consumers may form opinions according to their linguistic evaluation of the word used to symbolize biotechnology and food products resulting from biotechnology. This poses obvious problems for public communicators and educators, but it also causes potential problems for public opinion and public perception researchers, who must ensure that the connotations of the terms used in their survey questions and focus group discussion schedules don?t affect the tone of participants? responses.

Recent studies point to the importance of linguistics in determining public perceptions of biotechnology. In their analysis of biotechnology marketing, Wasnik and Kim (2001) concluded the following: “Biotechnology is a branding issue. It is providing a clear, systematic, vivid, focused message that is potentially important to consumers ? the powerful visuals that are associated with names such as “FrankenFoods” and “Super Weeds” leave little wonder why the public is able to latch on to such bumper-sticker philosophies of skeptics and be moved” (p. 10). Wasnik and Kim (2000) also reported on a 1991 European survey that found twice as many respondents thought that “genetic engineering” would make their lives worse than those who thought “biotechnology” would (p. 18).

Additionally, focus group research by Levy and Derby (2000) concluded that consumers in Maryland, Vermont, Washington, and Missouri found the terms “genetically engineered,” “genetically modified,” and “bioengineered” to be reasonably descriptive. However, the researchers also reported that connecting the concept of engineering with food had negative implications for some participants, that the term “modification” was seen as a vaguer, softer way of saying engineered, and that the “bio” sparked positive images for some participants. Terms such as “product of biotechnology,” or “bio technology” had the least amount of negative implication, while acronyms such as GM and GE were unfamiliar to most participants and were not viewed favorably by participants. Most participants were unfamiliar with the term “genetically modified organism” and considered it to be an inappropriate name for bioengineered foods, possibly because it implied that foods are organisms or contain organisms, which some people think is inaccurate and unappealing.

Also, in a recent survey of college students? perceptions, Sohan, Waliczek, and Briers (2002), found that students? unfamiliarity with technical terminology affected their responses to survey questions about biotechnology.

The results of these recent studies imply that inconsistent and unfamiliar terminology in public communications and in public perception survey instruments is problematic. Even a cursory glance at news articles, journal articles, and survey instruments related to biotechnology would reveal that there is no agreed-upon lexicon for the concept of biotechnology and its many applications among communicators, educators, and public perception researchers.

Purpose and Objectives

Because consumers lean heavily on mass media for information to help them form opinions about biotechnology, an analysis of the relationship between terminology and tone in mass communication efforts could lead to a better understanding of how terminology affects consumer perceptions. The purpose of this study was to build upon previous research about terminology related to biotechnology in working toward a common lexicon that can be applied more purposefully in public communications and survey research efforts. The study was guided by the following objectives:

1. Analyze textual content from agricultural biotechnology-related articles in selected national and regional newspapers and trade publications to determine primary issues addressed and overall tone of the article.

2. Determine the terminology used in the articles? first reference to biotechnology or biotechnology-related products.

3. Determine possible relationships between the various terms most commonly used in first references to biotechnology and the perceived tone of the article.

Method

Initial Qualitative Analysis

A purposively selected collection of 137 articles was developed, including articles from three national news publications?The Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Times; one regional news publication–The Des Moines Register; three national agricultural trade publications–Farm Journal, Progressive Farmer, and Soybean Digest; one regional agricultural trade publication–Delta Farm Press; and one agricultural marketing trade publication–Agri Marketing. To be eligible for this study, an article must have contained some mention of agricultural biotechnology or products of agricultural biotechnology. The selected articles included opinion pieces and commentaries, news reports, and feature stories. Articles examined appeared in print between January 1, 2000 and July 1, 2002.

An initial qualitative analysis, which involved a team of coders working to develop a visual hierarchy of major themes, characteristics and definitions, led to development of a coding sheet to be employed by three trained coders. Emergent themes included Tone (positive, negative and neutral), Balance (balanced or not balanced), Length (number of words in article), Section (e.g., News, Business, Real Estate, Agriculture), Sources (people or organizations referred to or quoted in the article), Central Issues (socio-economic, political, and physical science), Secondary Issues (specific topics related to the central issue) and First-Reference Terminology (e.g., biotechnology, genetically engineered, or genetically modified).

For the purposes of this study, only information from the Central Issues, Tone, and First Reference Terminology categories were analyzed to determine relationships. Definitions for these characteristics agreed upon by the coders were the following:

Central Issue: The overarching theme under which the majority of information in the article fits.

Tone: The extent to which an article as a whole, through rhetorical stance, approves or disapproves of biotechnology.

First Reference Terminology: The first mention in an article of biotechnology or of concepts related to biotechnology. (Popular terms and their close variations were grouped. For example, “genetic modification” was grouped with “genetically modified.”)

Coder Training and Interrater Reliability

Three coders each read the first 50 randomly selected articles in sets of 10, using the coding sheet to characterize each article. The coders compared and discussed their characterizations at length, working toward consensus on the characterization of each article, until their characterizations reached an acceptable level of agreement (k=.80) according to Cohen?s (1960) index of interrater reliability.Acceptable agreement occurred at the conclusion of the fifth rating session. With a clear understanding of the group?s consensus, two of the three coders characterized the balance of the articles. Frequent discussions and peer critiques among the coders helped to further ensure interrater reliability.

Frequencies of codes related to tone, issues, and first-reference terminology were recorded and analyzed for emerging patterns and relationships. The results constituted the findings of this study.

Results

Primary Issues Addressed

Socio-economic issues dominated the selection of articles. Nearly half of the 137 articles focused on a broad range of issues under this category. Among them were numerous articles related to consumer and producer costs and benefits, agricultural industry concerns and actions, and environmental concerns. Political issues were second in frequency and focused on regulation, public opinion, and international politics. A relatively smaller number of the articles fit into the physical science category, which included stories about genetic science methods and biotechnology products.

Overall Tone Characteristics

Seventy percent of the 137 articles were positive or neutral in tone, with 36% coded as having a positive rhetorical stance with regard to biotechnology and 34% coded as neutral. Thirty percent were coded as having a negative tone toward biotechnology.

Table 1

Overall tone of biotechnology articles (N=137).

	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Total
Tone Frequencies	50 (36%)	46 (34%)	41 (30%)	137 (100%)

Common Terms for Biotechnology

Three terms used to describe biotechnology and products of biotechnology were clearly used more than any others. “Genetically modified” was used in the first reference to biotechnology in 35% of the 137 articles. “Genetically engineered” was the first-reference term used in 30% of the articles, and “biotechnology” (including “biotech”) was the first-reference term in 19% of the articles. Other terms and acronyms, such as “bio-engineered,” “GMO,” and “Genetically altered” were used on first reference much less frequently.

Interrelationships among Issues, Tone, and Terminology

Issues and Tone

Issues and article tone appeared to have a definite relationship. The 66 socio-economic articles were noticeably polarized, with 39% having a positive tone and 35% having a negative tone. Political articles found the middle ground, with 46% being coded as neutral. Fifty-eight percent of the physical science articles had a positive tone.

Table 2

Relationship between issues and tone in biotechnology articles (N=137).

	Socio-Economic	Political	Physical Science
Positive	26 (39%)	13 (25%)	11 (58%)
Neutral	17 (26%)	24 (46%)	5 (26%)
Negative	23 (35%)	15 (29%)	3 (16%)
Totals	66 (100%)	52 (100%)	19 (100%)

Tone and Terminology

A clear majority (54%) of the articles employing “biotechnology” as the first reference to the technology had a positive tone; 23% were negative, and 23% were neutral. Articles using the term “genetically engineered” as the first reference to biotechnology also were predominantly positive, with 46% positive, 32% neutral, and 22% negative. Nearly half (48%) of the articles using “genetically modified” were neutral, yet 29% were negative and only 23% were positive.

Table 3

Relationships between tone and terminology in biotechnology articles (N=137).

	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Totals
Biotech/Biotechnology	14 (54%)	6 (23%)	6 (23%)	26 (100%)
Genetically engineered	19 (46%)	13 (32%)	9 (22%)	41 (100%)
Genetically modified	11 (23%)	23 (48%)	14 (29%)	48 (100%)
Other	6 (27%)	4 (18%)	12 (55%)	22 (100%)
GMO	2	0	1	3
Transgenic	0	0	1	1
Cloning/cloned	1	0	0	1
Bio-engineered	1	2	6	9
Gene-/Genetically altered	1	2	4	7
Genetic Technology	1	0	0	1

Terminology and Issues

In articles that focused on socio-economic issues, “genetically engineered” was the most popular choice of first-reference terminology. Thirty-three percent of the socio-economic articles used “genetically engineered” upon first reference. “Genetically modified” was also a common first-reference term in socio-economic articles (30%). “Biotechnology” was used in 21% of the articles. “Bio-engineered” and “genetically altered,” which were identified in only a few articles, were used most often in socio-economic pieces (7% and 6%, respectively).

Articles about political issues were more uniform in their use of terminology. Forty-eight percent of the political articles used “genetically modified” as the first reference to the technology.

“Genetically engineered” was the choice term by journalists who wrote physical science articles. Fifty-two percent of the physical science articles first referred to biotechnology with this term.

Table 4.

Relationship between terminology and issues in biotechnology articles.

	Socio- Economic	Political	Physical Science
Biotech/Biotechnology	14 (21%)	9 (17%)	3 (16%)
Genetically engineered	22 (33%)	9 (17%)	10 (53%)
Genetically modified	20 (30%)	25 (48%)	3 (16%)
Other	10 (15%)	9 (17%)	3 (16%)
GMO	1	1	1
Transgenic	0	1	0
Cloning/cloned	0	0	1
Bio-engineered	5	4	0
Gene-/Genetically altered	4	2	1
Genetic Technology	0	1	0
Totals	66 (100%)	52 (100%)	19 (100%)

Conclusions and Discussion

The findings point to some important preliminary concepts regarding the interrelationships between journalistic tone, issues, and terminology that deserve more thought and investigation. This qualitative study, performed from the perspective of inductive thought, could set the stage for further analysis with a larger, more representative sample and a more deductive approach.

The characterization of the tone of biotechnology coverage examined in this study is congruent with recent content analysis studies claiming that coverage by U.S. journalists has been neutral, if not positive (IFIC, 2001).? During the analysis, it became evident that some publications?the regional news and national trade publications? specifically?were more likely to publish biotechnology articles with positive or at least neutral tones.? Though differences among publications in terms of tone and issues covered was beyond the scope of this study, more work will be done to describe this interrelationship.

The biotechnology lexicon among the authors of the articles in this study, was not as disorganized as some may have predicted.? The terms ?genetically modified,? ?genetically engineered,? and ?biotechnology? were clearly the most common first-reference terms, and therefore are likely the most recognizable to consumers.? Additionally, during the data analysis, it became clear that individual publications were relatively consistent in their use of first-reference terminology (though many articles employed alternative terms deeper into the story).? Whether this represents consistent choices by copy editors or authors is uncertain, and could also be the focus of more investigation.

Terminology?s relationship to tone is evident in the findings.? However, the causality of the relationship remains unclear and will require more investigation.? ?Genetically modified? appears to have been the most popular term among journalists, and it also appears to have been the term of choice for journalists who wrote neutral stories about biotechnology.? Meanwhile, ?genetically engineered,? the second most popular term, appeared as the first-term reference to biotechnology in the highest percentage of physical science articles, which were mostly positive.? However, ?biotechnology? was clearly related to the highest percentage of positive stories.? This supports Levy and Derby?s (2000) findings that ?biotechnology? is the least negative term and that though ?genetically engineered? is descriptive enough, ?genetically modified? may be a gentler, less emotionally charged term.? Because of its popularity in mass media and because it seems to be the most benign of the three most popular terms, ?genetically modified? and closely related terminology should serve both communicators and survey researchers who are searching for a neutral term, recognizable by consumers, to use in reference to many types of biotechnology and biotechnology products.? When the situation calls for a more positive term, ?biotechnology? might be the best fit.? Also, for those searching for a term with more negative connotations, the less popular and more negatively-charged terms ?bio-engineered? and ?genetically altered? might serve as appropriate choices.?

Differences in journalists? terminology choices among articles with focuses on socio-economic, political, and physical science issues also were evident.? Physical science writers most commonly chose the term ?genetically engineered,? which was found to be less positive than ?biotechnology.?? However, physical science articles were often supportive of the technology, which presents a slight contradiction and raises the question of whether science journalists are aware of the connotations of the terminology they choose.? In political articles, which were relatively neutral, journalists used ?genetically modified? nearly three times as often as any other term.? This finding supports the description of ?genetically modified? as a relatively neutral term.? In socio-economic articles, which were obviously polarized, ?genetically engineered? was used nearly as commonly as ?genetically modified.?? Whether the use of these terms is directly related to the polarity of socio-economic articles is unclear and should be the focus of further analysis.

Finally, because this study was preliminary and exploratory, some methodological lessons became evident during the data collection and anaylsis phases. Choices of keywords used to identify biotechnology-related articles in various databases possibly influenced the findings. It was apparent that journalists normally used a few–sometimes several–different terms to refer to the technology after the first reference (though the first-reference terms hold the most rheotical weight) so a more inclusive keyword search string would add reliability to similar studies of this nature.?

This study indicates that relationships may exist among tone, issues, and terminology in journalistic articles about agricultural biotechnology.?? A better understanding of these relationships is necessary for journalists and public communicators in all facets of the issue as well as for public perception researchers in academe and industry.? More studies on these relationships are necessary to support or refute the conclusions of this exploratory study and to help communications practitioners and researchers make informed decisions in their choices of terminology representing biotechnology and products resulting from biotechnology.

References

Cohen, J. (1960).? A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37-46.

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J. & Allum, N.C. (1999, July 17). Worlds Apart?? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285, (5426).

Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1999, June). The media and public understanding of biotechnology. Science Communication, 20(4), 373-394.

Hoban, T.J. & Kendall, P.A. (1996). Anticipating public reaction to the use of genetic engineering infant nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63, 657S-662S.

International Food Information Council Foundation [IFIC].? (2001, November). Most Americans can articulate expected benefits of food biotechnology.? Retrieved March 15, 2002 from http://ific.org

Levy, A.S. & Derby, B.M.? (2000, October).? Report on consumer focus groups on biotechnology.? U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Scientific Analysis and Support.? Retrieved June 21, 2002 from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html

Lien, Nai-Hwa. (2001).? Elaboration Likelohood Model in consumer research:? A Review.? Proceedings of the National Science Council, 11 (4), 301-310.

Marks, L.A.? (2001).? Communicating about agrobiotecnology.? AgBioFourm, 4 (3-4), 152-154.

Priest, S.H. (2000).? U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology?? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939-942.

Sohan, D.E., Waliczek, T.M., & Briers, G.E.? (2002).? Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding biotechnology among college students.? Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, 31, 5-11.

Vestal, T.A. & Briers, G.E. (2000). Exploring knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of newspaper journalists in metropolitan markets in the United States regarding food biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 134-144.

Wansink, B. & Kim, J. (2001).? The marketing battle over genetically modified foods:? False assumptions about consumer behavior.? American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (8), 1405-1417.