Gale, Wayne (author / Chair, American Seed Trade Association)
Format:
Commentary
Publication Date:
2019-06-18
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 114 Document Number: D11041
Notes:
The June 7, 2019 commentary by Barber in the New York Times was retrieved online at: https://seedfreedom.info/opinion-save-our-food-free-the-seed. It is filed with this document., Online via seedworld.com. 3 pages., Response to an opinion piece in the New York Times by celebrity chef Dan Barber. Barber reported on visiting a 24,000-acre farm in North Dakota and observing the large scale of operations. He concluded: "We should be alarmed by the current architects." In this commentary author Gale offered a differing view of the changes in plant breeding and the seed industry over the past 100-plus years - and what they mean for the future.
24 pages., via online journal., The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment (N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.
28 pages, via online journal, While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
