Abstract:BACKGROUND: In this age of social media, any news-good or bad-has the potential to spread in unpredictable ways. Changes in public sentiment have the potential to either drive or limit investment in publicly funded activities, such as scientific research. As a result, understanding the ways in which reported cases of scientific misconduct shape public sentiment is becoming increasingly essential-for researchers and institutions, as well as for policy makers and funders. In this study, we thus set out to assess and define the patterns according to which public sentiment may change in response to reported cases of scientific misconduct. This study focuses on the public response to the events involved in a recent case of major scientific misconduct that occurred in 2014 in Japan-stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell case.OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine (1) the patterns according to which public sentiment changes in response to scientific misconduct; (2) whether such measures vary significantly, coincident with major timeline events; and (3) whether the changes observed mirror the response patterns reported in the literature with respect to other classes of events, such as entertainment news and disaster reports.METHODS: The recent STAP cell scandal is used as a test case. Changes in the volume and polarity of discussion were assessed using a sampling of case-related Twitter data, published between January 28, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Rapidminer was used for text processing and the popular bag-of-words algorithm, SentiWordNet, was used in Rapidminer to calculate sentiment for each sample Tweet. Relative volume and sentiment was then assessed overall, month-to-month, and with respect to individual entities.RESULTS: Despite the ostensibly negative subject, average sentiment over the observed period tended to be neutral (-0.04); however, a notable downward trend (y=-0.01 x +0.09; R ²=.45) was observed month-to-month. Notably polarized tweets accounted for less than one-third of sampled discussion: 17.49% (1656/9467) negative and 12.59% positive (1192/9467). Significant polarization was found in only 4 out of the 15 months covered, with significant variation month-to-month (P<.001). Significant increases in polarization tended to coincide with increased discussion volume surrounding major events (P<.001).CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that public opinion toward scientific research may be subject to the same sensationalist dynamics driving public opinion in other, consumer-oriented topics. The patterns in public response observed here, with respect to the STAP cell case, were found to be consistent with those observed in the literature with respect to other classes of news-worthy events on Twitter. Discussion was found to become strongly polarized only during times of increased public attention, and such increases tended to be driven primarily by negative reporting and reactionary commentary.

Assessing Public Opinion on CRISPR-Cas9: Combining Crowdsourcing and Deep Learning

CRISPR Images: Media Use and Public Opinion About Gene Editing

What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR

The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study

Understanding Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Organisms on Twitter

A Q methodology study on divergent perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 in the Netherlands

CRISPR is easy: Exposure to Last Week Tonight enhances knowledge about gene editing

How does the public discuss gene-editing in agriculture? An analysis of Twitter content

Machine Learning Techniques for Sentiment Analysis of COVID-19-Related Twitter Data

Determination of Factors Driving the Genome Editing Field in the CRISPR Era Using Bibliometrics.

Everything in moderation, even hype: learning from vaccine controversies to strike a balance with CRISPR

A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review

Public Response to Scientific Misconduct: Assessing Changes in Public Sentiment Toward the Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) Cell Case via Twitter

Deep learning in CRISPR-Cas systems: a review of recent studies

Comparison of Public Discussions of Gene Editing on Social Media Between the United States and China

Genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas system: an art, ethics and global regulatory perspective

CRISPR as a driving force: the Model T of biotechnology

Bibliometric analysis on CRISPR/Cas: a potential Sherlock Holmes for disease detection

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues

Monitoring User Opinions and Side Effects on COVID-19 Vaccines in the Twittersphere: Infodemiology Study of Tweets

Emerging ethical perspectives in the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats genome-editing debate