The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat
Open accessAbstract
Drawing on social representations theory, we explore how the public make sense of the unfamiliar, taking as the example a novel technology: synthetic meat. Data from an online deliberation study and eighteen focus groups in Belgium, Portugal and the UK indicated that the various strategies of sense-making afforded different levels of critical thinking about synthetic meat. Anchoring to genetic modification, metaphors like ‘Frankenfoods’ and commonplaces like ‘playing God’ closed off debates around potential applications of synthetic meat, whereas asking factual and rhetorical questions about it, weighing up pragmatically its risks and benefits, and envisaging changing current mentalities or behaviours in order to adapt to scientific developments enabled a consideration of synthetic meat’s possible implications for agriculture, environment, and society. We suggest that research on public understanding of technology should cultivate a climate of active thinking and should encourage questioning during the process of sense-making to try to reduce unhelpful anchoring.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., & Vereijken, C. (2011) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005 · Cited by 424 · cited 2×
“…risk management provision, ethics, risk and benefit perceptions, uncertainty and unknown long-term effects, and concerns about wider implications of science for society (Siegrist, 2008; Palma-Oliveira et al., 2009; de Barcellos et al., 2010; Frewer et al., 2011; Rollin, Kennedy and Wills, 2011).”
Background
Cited by
Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x · Cited by 802
Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat
Post, M. J., Levenberg, S., Kaplan, D. L., Genovese, N., Fu, J., Bryant, C. J., Negowetti, N., Verzijden, K., & Moutsatsou, P. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z · Cited by 783
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010 · Cited by 768
Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review
Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008 · Cited by 532
Self-citationVerbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013 · Cited by 390
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J.
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-02-19
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 547-562
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2021343141
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0963662514521106
- The paper
- Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2015). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514521106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.