A new study is urging balanced expectations for agricultural innovations being developed in Ghana, cautioning that overhyping such technologies could fuel public scepticism and mistrust.

The study, which examined media coverage of gene editing — an emerging agricultural technology — in Ghana, noted that experiences from previous scientific debates, including the COVID-19 pandemic, show that people can become suspicious of overly amplified positive narratives surrounding contentious scientific issues.

“This could potentially reinforce dominant narratives and may heighten public scepticism of the technology,” the study, led by Dr Joseph Opoku Gakpo, Ghanaian Research Scholar at the Hub for Food Systems Communication and Engagement at North Carolina State University, noted.

Gene editing is a method of changing the instructions inside a living thing’s DNA. DNA works like a recipe book that tells plants, animals, and humans how to grow and function. Gene editing allows scientists to add, remove, or change small parts of those instructions to create desired traits.

Scientists are using gene editing to help crops resist diseases, become more resilient to drought, and improve nutritional value, among other potential benefits.

The African Union says ‘genome editing presents a ray of hope as Africa confronts both food shortages and climate change.’

Ghana’s National Biosafety Authority (NBA) has authorised the Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture Research Institute (BNARI) to undertake genome editing of rice to target resistance to yellow mottle virus disease and drought tolerance.

The disease causes yellowing of rice leaves, stunted growth, poor grain development, and can lead to significant crop losses in severe cases.

Some researchers have also previously explored gene editing to develop a sweet potato variety with enhanced Vitamin A content.

In 2023, the NBA released guidelines outlining procedures researchers must follow when working on gene-edited crops, making Ghana the fourth country (after Nigeria, Kenya, and Malawi) to establish validated regulations for gene editing in Africa.

More from study

The study, titled “News media framing of gene-edited crops: a study of sources and perspectives,” assessed news media reporting on the technology in Ghana between 2021 and 2024.

“We found that while news reports were overwhelmingly pro-innovation centred—framing gene editing as a highly efficient scientific solution to agricultural challenges, consumer opinions and opposing viewpoints were notably absent.

Academics, scientists and government officials advocating the technology were the more frequently quoted sources,” the study published in the Journal of Science Communication (JCOM), noted.

“We caution that the news media’s overreliance on elite sources for information, while excluding grassroots, critical and alternative perspectives, could trigger perceptions of elite manipulative intent (PEMI).

"This could potentially reinforce dominant narratives and may heighten public scepticism of the technology,” the study’s abstract said.

“Notably, the majority of reports quoted local experts. This approach reinforces the credibility of news coverage and is essential for building public confidence and trust in emerging technologies,” the paper added.

Important point on balance

The authors note there is no single, universally effective approach to reporting on emerging innovations such as gene editing. Both promotional and critical forms of coverage offer important benefits while also presenting notable limitations.

Reporting that privileges compelling narratives and foregrounds expert and elite perspectives can help inform the public and support decision-making. However, such coverage may also contribute to PEMI.

PEMI leads audiences to suspect elites of hidden motives and to doubt their ability, integrity, and benevolence, which, in turn, erodes trust and encourages scepticism and resistance.

Conversely, critical or negative reporting that focuses primarily on potential risks and unintended consequences may also hinder the broader uptake and potential benefits of these technologies. A good balance is thus needed to help the public make informed decisions on such innovations in their food.

“Previous studies during the COVID-19 pandemic found that public suspicion of elites and mainstream institutions contributed to resistance against credible media reporting and increased acceptance of alternative narratives and misinformation,” Dr Gakpo observed.

“Even when strong scientific evidence existed, some people ignored guidance from trusted experts on COVID-19 while placing confidence in less credible sources. This pattern is called maladaptive gullibility. A similar trend could emerge around agricultural innovations if public trust and communication are not properly managed,” he added.

This research was undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of researchers from five universities on three different continents, including Gifty Andoh-Arthur Yapp of Cardiff University in the UK, Serene Cheng of University of California – Berkeley in the USA, Dr. Gakpo and Emma Davies of North Carolina State University in the USA, Dennis Baffour-Awuah of The University of Georgia in the USA, and Miriam Bosomtwe, a University of Ghana graduate.