Through semiotic analysis of manifest and latent meanings in editorial cartoons, the author uncovers how cloning and stem cell research are represented in a popular mass medium. She identified 86 editorial cartoons published in the United States between 2001 and 2004 that referred to cloning and 20 that referred to stem cell research. Cartoonists portrayed people individually 224 times and 4 times in groups of more than 10. Men were portrayed in64% of cartoons. Stem cell research was depicted as having a potential positive value, and cloning was depicted negatively. Some major messages are that cloning will lead to the mass production of evil, cloning creates monsters, and politics will influence who or what will be cloned. Analyzing popular images can allow access to public understanding about genetic technology and evaluation of public beliefs, preconceptions, and expectations as the public is educated on the use and value of services.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, and text. London: Fontana.
2.
Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
3.
Brabant, S. (1976). Sex role stereotyping in the Sunday comics. Sex Roles, 2(4), 331-337.
4.
Brabant S.,& Mooney, L. (1999). The social construction of family life in the Sunday comics: Race as a consideration. Journal of Comprehensive Family Studies, 30(1), 113-133.
5.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1999). The process of concept attainment. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 101-123). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Chavez, D. (1985). Perpetuation of gender equality: Acontent analysis of comic strips. Sex Roles, 13(1/2), 93-101.
7.
Collins, G. (2004, September 28). Toonology: Scientists try to find out what's so funny about humor. The New York Times, p. F3-F3.
8.
Condit, C. (1999). How the public understands genetics: Non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the “blueprint” metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 169-180.
9.
Condit, C. (2001). What is public opinion about genetics?Nature Reviews, 2, 811-815.
10.
Condit, C., & Williams, M. (1999). Audience responses to the discourse of medical genetics: Evidence against the critique of medicalization. Health Communication, 9(3), 219-235.
11.
Davison, A., Barns, I., & Schibeci, R. (1997). Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(3), 317-348.
12.
Douglas, M. (1975). Implicit meanings. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
13.
Einsiedel, E. F. (2000). Cloning and its discontents—A Canadian perspective. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 943-944.
14.
Frewer, L., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 35-50.
15.
Gasgell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938.
16.
Gasgell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J.,& Allum, N. C. (1999, July 16). Worlds apart?The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285, 384-387.
17.
Giarelli, E., & Tulman, L. (2003). Methodological issues in the use of cartoons as data. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 945-956.
18.
Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). (1972). The psychology of humor. New York: Academic Press.
19.
Hak, T., & Bernts, T. (1996). Coder training: Theoretical training or practical socialization?Qualitative Sociology, 19(2), 235-257.
20.
Hall, S. S. (2004, February 17). Specter of cloning may prove a mirage. The New York Times, p. F1-F1.
21.
Hallman, W. (1995). Public perception of agri-biotechnology. Genetic Engineering News, 15, 13-13.
22.
Hoban, T. J., & Kendall, P. A.(1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Raleigh: Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture/North Carolina State University.
23.
International Society of Stem Cell Research. (2004). Nomenclature statement. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://www.isscr.org/about/policies.htm
24.
International Society of Stem Cell Research. (2005). Glossary of stem cell–related terms. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://www.isscr.org/glossary/index.htm
25.
Kasen, J. H. (1980). Whither the self-made man? Comic culture and the crisis of legitimation in the United States. Social Problems, 28, 131-148.
26.
Krippendorff, K. (2002). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Krippendorff, K. (2005). Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/webreliability2.pdf
28.
LaRossa, R., Jaret, C., Gadgil, M.,& Wynn, G. R. (2000). The changing culture of fatherhood in comic-strip families: A six-decade analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 375-387.
29.
Mooney, L. A., & Brabant, S. (1990). The portrayal of boys and girls in six nationally syndicated comic strips. Sociology and Social Research, 74(2), 118-126.
30.
Nelkin, D.,& Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNAmystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: W. H. Freeman.
31.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. New York: Basil Blackwell.
32.
Neresini, F. (2000). And mandescended fromthe sheep: The public debate on cloning in the Italian press. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 359-382.
33.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1987). New developments in biotechnology: Public perceptions of biotechnology (OTA-BP-BA-45). Washington, DC: Author.
34.
Orbuch, T. L., & Custer, L. (1995). The social context of married women's work and its impact on Black husbands and White husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 333-345.
35.
Polivka, J. S. (1988). Is America aging? A message from media cartoons. Communication and Cognition, 21(1), 97-106.
36.
Potts, R., Runyan, D., Zerger, A., & Marchetti, K. (1996). Acontent analysis of safety behaviors of television characters: Implications for children's safety and injury. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21(4), 517-528.
37.
President's Council on Bioethics. (2004). Being human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.bioethics.gov/bookshelf
38.
Priest, S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939-942. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v18/n9/full/nbt0900_939.html
39.
Program on International Policy Attitudes. (2003). Biotechnology. Americans and the world: Public opinion on international affairs. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/biotechnology/biotech1.cfm
40.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston: Reidel.
41.
Richards, M., Hallowell, N., Green, J., Murton, F.,& Statham, H. (1995). Counselling families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 4(3), 219-231.
42.
Rothstein, E. (2003, March 13). The meaning of “human” in embryonic research. The New York Times, p. B8-B8.
43.
Safire, W. (2004, December 15). California's stem cell gold rush. The New York Times, p. A33-A33.
44.
Shultz, K., & Germeroth, D. (1998). Should we laugh or cry? John Callahan's humor as a tool to change societal attitudes towards disability. Howard Journal of Communication, 9, 229-244.
45.
Streicher, L. (1967). On a theory of political caricature. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9, 427-445.
46.
The Wellcome Trust. (1998). Public perspectives on human cloning. London: Author.
47.
Van Dijck, J. (1998). Imagenation: Popular images of genetics. London: Macmillan.
48.
van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 92-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
White, E. B. (2005). E. B. White (1899-1985) quotation. Retrieved September 26, 2005, from http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/E._B._White
50.
Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E.,& McWhir, J. (1997). Viable offspring derived fromfetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 358, 810-813.
