Term circulation and conceptual instability in the mediation of science: Binary framing of the notions of biological versus chemical pesticides

Abstract

This article explores the influence of textual structures on the acquisition of knowledge in popularization discourses related to biopesticides. Following a terminological insight into the linguistic and cognitive complexities of the notion, we proceed to a semantic analysis of press articles in major Anglo-Saxon newspapers, focusing on the explanation strategies used by the media to simplify their presentation. We show that in the mediation process, biopesticides (and co-referent terms) are systematically described as being environmentally friendly, and opposed to chemical pesticides, consistently shown to be detrimental to the environment. We hypothesize that this simplistic binary framing is exploited by journalists as it is easy to understand in a context of agroecological transition and commonly shared distrust for chemical pesticides. In that respect, it proves to be adequate for purposes of explanation and simplification. However, by outlining this discursive process based on duality, we aim to draw attention to the potential misconceptions of plant protection issues in general, and biopesticides in particular. We ultimately demonstrate that when adopting other perspectives (scientific, ontological or ethical), this dual framing proves to be inadequate for the construction of knowledge by any non-expert press reader.