Umeå University's logo

In the late 1970s, the media debate about recombinant DNA technology was Sweden’s first, but far from last, controversy about the risks and possibilities of genetic engineering. Based on the concept of knowledge cartographies, this study highlights how the main actors in the debate tried to make sense of what gene technology entailed, but also, and more importantly, how knowledge about the technology and its consequences should be communicated and disseminated in society. The article shows that the combination of a relatively unanimous research community with the absence of an organized and engaged public meant that the communicative line of conflict mainly came to stand between researchers on one side and the mass media and individual politicians on the other. Here, long-established trust in experts stood against a new approach in which the research community was held democratically and morally accountable. The whole debate can be understood as being placed in a transitional period in which the previously dominating authoritative knowledge cartography began to make room for a burgeoning public sphere cartography. The debate was also colored by its contemporary context; by other ongoing science-related controversies, such as that of nuclear power, and not least by the emergence of new journalistic ideals and broader public discussions about academic freedom and scientists’ communicative obligations.

Over the past ten to fifteen years, medical interventions, therapeutic approaches and scientific studies involving mindfulness meditation have gained traction in areas such as clinical psychology, psychotherapy, and neuroscience. Simultaneously, mindfulness has had a very strong public appeal. This article examines some of the ways in which the medical and scientific meaning of mindfulness is communicated in public and to the public. In particular, it shows how experts in the field of mindfulness neuroscience seek to communicate to the public at large the imperative of brain fitness for the promotion of health, wellbeing and happiness. The study identifies claims being made in popular outlets that, by and large, bypass traditional mass media, such as self-help books, websites and online videos. By treating this material as a form of personalized science communication, this article contributes to the body of literature that understands science communication as a continuum and the boundary between science and popularized science as the outcome of human negotiations. The study finds that processes of personalization help to build bridges between scientific findings and their supposed application, that they infuse science with subjective meaning, and turn expert communication with the public into a moral vocation.

Over the past 10–15 years, medical interventions, therapeutic approaches, and scientific studies involving mindfulness meditation have gained traction in areas such as clinical psychology, psychotherapy, and neuroscience. Simultaneously, mindfulness has had a very strong public appeal. This chapter examines some of the ways in which the scientific meaning of mindfulness is communicated in public and to the public. In particular, it shows how experts in the field of mindfulness neuroscience seek to communicate to the public at large the imperative of brain fitness for the promotion of health, well-being, and happiness. The study identifies claims being made in popular outlets that, by and large, bypass traditional mass media, such as self-help books, Web sites, and online videos. By treating this material as a form of personalized science communication, this article contributes to the body of literature that understands science communication as a continuum, and the boundary between science and popularized science as the outcome of human negotiations. The study finds that processes of personalization help to build bridges between scientific findings and their supposed application, infuse science with subjective meaning, and turn expert communication with the public into a moral vocation.