Gene drive could be a powerful tool for addressing problems of conservation, agriculture, and human health caused by insect and animal pests but is likely to be controversial as it involves the release of genetically modified organisms. This study examined the social determinants of opinion of gene drive. We asked a representative sample of the U.S. public to respond to a description of a hypothetical application of a gene-drive mosquito to the problem of malaria and examined the relationship of these responses with demographic and ideological beliefs. We found strong general approval for the use of gene-drive mosquitos to address malaria, coinciding with the concern about a possible environmental impact of modified mosquitos and that gene drives represent \"too much power over nature.\" Among the determinants we measured, respondent acceptance of scientism and trust that scientists are advancing the public\'s interest were the greatest predictors of views of gene drive.

Contemporary scientific and technological endeavours face public and political pressure to adopt open, transparent and democratically accountable practices of public engagement. Prior research has identified different ways that experts \'imagine publics\' - as uninformed, as disengaged, as a risk to science, and as co-producers of knowledge - but there has yet to be a systematic exploration of how these views emerge, interact and evolve. This article introduces a typology of imagined publics to analyse how publics are constructed in the field of forest genomics. We find that deficit views of publics have not been replaced by co-production. Instead, deficit and co-productive approaches to publics co-exist and overlap, informing both how publics are characterized and how public perceptions are studied. We outline an agenda for deepening and expanding research on public perceptions of novel technologies. Specifically, we call for more diverse and complex methodological approaches that account for relational dynamics over time.

Using the two cases of the Icelandic Health Sector Database and Russian initiatives in biobanking, the article criticizes the view of narratives and imaginaries as a sufficient and unproblematic means of shaping public understanding of genetics and justifying population-wide projects. Narrative representations of national biobanking engage particular imaginaries that are not bound by the universal normative framework of human rights, promote affective thinking, distract the public from recognizing and discussing tangible ethical and socioeconomic issues, and harm trust in science and technology. In the Icelandic case, the presentation of the project in association with national imaginaries concealed its market identity and could lead to the commodification of biodata. In the Russian case, framing in terms of \"genetic sovereignty\" and \"civilizational code\" offers pretexts for state securitization. Adherence to normative framework of human rights and public discussion of genetics in an argumentative and factual mode can counter these trends.

News coverage of the opioid epidemic is a useful site for examining genomic framings of addiction. Qualitative analysis of 139 articles published in the United States from 2015 to 2019 discussing genomics, addiction, and the opioid epidemic found an emphasis on both a postgenomic framing in which genetics operates in relation to social and environmental factors, and a molecularized understanding of addiction which highlighted the role of neurobiology and individual-level genetic risk. Discussions of genetics were often intertwined with calls for a biomedicalized approach that frames addiction as a chronic disease in need of medication, and thus under the purview of medical experts. Finally, while genomic discourses were invoked to reduce stigma, genomics was at times used to describe addicts as biologically distinct from other people, reflecting the possibility that genetics-even in the postgenomic context-can be used to promote a biologically essentialized understanding of people with addiction.

Personalized medicine has generated massive investments in data integration initiatives and stimulated new flows of health data among multiple actors. Such flows raise questions as to who should be able to access data, for which purposes, and how this access and use should be regulated. We suggest thinking of these questions as matters of \'data authority\': who can legitimately do what with health data? In this article, we analyze a public debate developing in written media about personalized medicine to understand negotiations of data authority. We demonstrate how the debate creates no consensus and yet seems to stimulate selective regulatory changes. The changes are selective in the sense that they focus on the protection of autonomy but fail to address concerns about, for example, commercial interests. We argue that data authority rests on enduring conflict and that this conflict can be seen as constitutive for personalized medicine as a sociotechnical phenomenon.

\'In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as \"ethical aspects.\" Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.

Biobanks are essential tools for facilitating biomedical research, because they provide collections of human tissue linked with personal information. There is still little understanding of the underlying reasons why people participate in biobanking in the increasingly commercialised and internationalised biomedical research environment. This paper reports the results of an Australia-wide telephone survey. The paper analyses the types of obligations that members of the public may wish to see incorporated in biobank benefit sharing arrangements and the extent to which their views might be influenced by underlying norms of sharing behaviour. Latent class analysis of the dataset reveals three distinct classes of respondents. We link one of these with the norm of reciprocity, one with the norm of social responsibility. The third is not clearly linked with any one norm of sharing behaviour. The implications of these findings on biobank benefit sharing arrangements are discussed.