Barbara L. Ley

Investigating CSI: portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects.

The popularity of forensic crime shows such as CSI has fueled debate about their potential social impact. This study considers CSI’s potential effects on public understandings regarding DNA testing in the context of judicial processes, the policy debates surrounding crime laboratory procedures, and the forensic science profession, as well as an effect not discussed in previous accounts: namely, the show’s potential impact on public understandings of DNA and genetics more generally. To develop a theoretical foundation for research on the “CSI effect,” it draws on cultivation theory, social cognitive theory, and audience reception studies. It then uses content analysis and textual analysis to illuminate how the show depicts DNA testing. The results demonstrate that CSI tends to depict DNA testing as routine, swift, useful, and reliable and that it echoes broader discourses about genetics. At times, however, the show suggests more complex ways of thinking about DNA testing and genetics.

Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence

This study uses survey data to examine how various forms of media use are related to public perceptions of DNA evidence, including self-perceived understanding of DNA, perceptions of DNA evidence as reliable, weight attached to DNA evidence (or the absence thereof) in jury decision making, and support for a national DNA databank.The hypotheses build on cultivation theory, priming theory, and research regarding the “CSI effect.” The findings indicate that overall television viewing, crime television viewing, and news media use predict perceptions of DNA evidence. Moreover, a question-order experiment produced evidence that priming thoughts about media can influence such perceptions.

Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment

Given that trust plays a key role in the communication of scientific information about the environment to the public, this study examines what explains trust in specific sources of such information. In doing so, it analyzes whether—and, if so, how—political ideology, support for environmental regulation, religiosity, trust in people, and trust in government predict trust in scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental organizations, news media, and science media. It also examines whether trust in scientists is associated with trust in the other sources in light of how each of the latter draws on the credibility of the former.

Multiple Exposures: Scientific Controversy, the Media, and Public Responses to Bisphenol A

The controversy surrounding the potential health effects of bisphenol A (BPA) has recently spread from the scientific arena to mass mediated public debate. This study presents a theoretical account of low-information rationality to explain why media use (including newspaper use and online health information use) and confidence in key actors (including business, the Food and Drug Administration, and scientists) may predict public responses to BPA. It then analyzes survey data to examine how these factors are related to familiarity with BPA, concern about it, support for a ban on it, and behaviors to reduce exposure to it.

Contested evidence: Exposure to competing scientific claims and public support for banning bisphenol A

The public controversy surrounding bisphenol A (BPA) revolves around competing claims about what scientific evidence shows regarding the effects of the chemical on human health. This study uses an experiment embedded within a public opinion survey to test the effects of exposure to such claims on public support for banning the use of BPA in products. Exposure to the claim that “there is not enough scientific evidence that BPA harms human health” reduced support, whereas exposure to the claim that there “is enough scientific evidence” failed to increase support. No effect emerged among those simultaneously exposed to both claims. The “not enough evidence” claim influenced less educated respondents and women but not college-educated respondents or men. Aspects of the underlying structure of opinion also differed depending on which claim(s) respondents received. The results illuminate how members of the public respond to competing scientific claims regarding controversial issues.

Chemical Controversy: Canadian and US News Coverage of the Scientific Debate about Bisphenol A

This study analyzes how newspapers covered the scientific controversy surrounding the health effects of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA). Specifically, it examines whether framing, sources of scientific information, and balancing of competing sides in the debate differed across national political contexts and journalistic approaches. In regard to the former, it compares coverage in Canada (represented by the Globe and Mail), which had banned BPA in baby bottles and cups, to coverage in the United States (represented by the New York Times and Washington Post), which had not. In regard to the latter, it compares coverage in two US newspapers that took a conventional journalistic approach (the New York Times and Washington Post) to coverage in a US newspaper that launched an investigative series regarding BPA (the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). The study concludes by considering what the findings suggest about how social forces shape coverage of scientific controversies involving environmental issues.

Social Media, Networked Protest, and the March for Science

Recent studies have explored how the US public responded to the March for Science protests that took place around the world on April 22, 2017, as well as why individuals participated in these protests. Yet, little research has examined how participants used social media and other channels to learn, communicate, and form behavioral intentions regarding the movement. In addressing these questions, the present study conceptualizes the March for Science as a “networked protest.” It then analyzes data from two surveys: one distributed through social media in the month preceding the March for Science events, and one conducted at the Washington, DC event. The results suggest that social media—particularly Facebook—played key roles in how respondents learned and communicated about the protest. At the same time, respondents also learned and communicated about it through other channels, including texting, email, and face-to-face conversations. Both social media respondents and in-person respondents reported that their experiences with the March had increased their likelihood of undertaking future online and offline actions. Furthermore, communicating through Facebook and Twitter predicted a range of self-reported effects of March experiences on intentions to undertake future actions, whereas learning through social media largely failed to do so. Thus, some—but not all—social media uses may have encouraged participants to sustain both online and offline engagement. Taken together, the findings carry potential implications for how the March for Science and other networked protests can use social media and other communication forms to mobilize supporters and facilitate long-term engagement.

Public Responses to Forensic DNA Testing Backlogs: Media Use and Understandings of Science

A number of public controversies have emerged around forensic DNA testing backlogs at crime laboratories in the United States. This study provides a first look at public responses to such backlogs, using a controversy in the state of Wisconsin as a case study. First, it builds on research about public understandings of DNA and the “CSI effect” to develop a theoretical framework. Next, it explores news coverage of the Wisconsin backlog. It then uses survey data to show that public understandings of DNA, media use, and demographic factors were related to how closely respondents followed the story about the backlog and/or how much they supported increased spending on DNA testing at the crime lab. Self-reported understanding of DNA predicted following the backlog, whereas perceived reliability of DNA evidence predicted both following the backlog and support. Total television viewing was not related to either following the backlog or support, but watching crime television predicted following the backlog. Reading a newspaper and watching local TV news each predicted following the backlog; reading a newspaper also predicted support. These results suggest a number of theoretical insights into how members of the public may reason about and draw on media messages regarding DNA and DNA testing in responding to forensic DNA testing backlogs.