ABSTRACT
This essay critiques and creates metaphoric genetic rhetoric by examining metaphors for genes used by representatives of the lay American public. We assess these metaphors with a new rhetorical orientation that we developed by building onto work by Robert Ivie and social scientific qualitative studies of audiences. Specifically, our analysis reveals three themes of genetic metaphors, with the first two appearing most frequently: 1) genes as a disease or problem 2) genes as fire or bomb, and 3) genes as gambling. We not only discuss the problems and untapped potential of these metaphors, but also we suggest metaphorically understanding genes interacting with the environment as a dance or a band. This essay has implications for rhetorical criticism, science studies, and public health.
ABSTRACT
The primary goal of this study was to determine the extent to which religious frameworks inform lay public understandings of genes and disease. Contrary to existing research, there were minimal differences between racial groups. We did, however, observe two patterns in that data that are worthy of discussion. First, because participants were from the south, the finding that participants from both racial groups ascribe to a religious belief system to make sense of their lived experiences is not surprising. Rather, it appears to be reflective of the religious culture that is an integral part of the south and our identity as a nation. A second noteworthy finding is that while a significant number of participants believe that a relationship exists between health status, genes, and religious behaviors, they also recognize that positive health behaviors must also be adopted as a means for staving off disease. In some cases, however, there was a belief that health issues could dissolve or disappear as a result of certain religious behaviors such as prayer.
