Paper short abstract:

This paper explores the co-production of knowledge on Antimicrobial Resistance between the media and the public in the United Kingdom. The aim is to better understand the ‘scientific’ knowledge uptake by the media and the public and how to deal with public controversies and public learning

Paper long abstract:

Both 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' literature present different versions on factors that contribute to the definition of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). Not only is AMR an issue of scientific complexity and conflicting interests, it is also an issue of uncertainty, in which risk perceptions of various actors are affected by different truth claims on what makes AMR. This paper explores the present media discourse and the publics 'scientific' understanding of AMR in the UK. A document analysis study has been performed by the researcher on the construction of AMR in UK media sources (newspapers, online newspapers and twitter) published between 2012-2015. By using a discourse analysis of written documents, the first part of this study analysed how the debate on AMR by the media was framed, whose definitions got communicated and which stakeholders were blamed. The second part analysed online comments of the public on these media sources to gain knowledge on how the public constructs AMR and what events covered in the media affected the publics sense of reassurance and thrust. These insights can be used to study uncertainties and controversies concerning AMR beyond the established factors and 'scientific facts' on AMR listed by the official actors, which provides new lines of research. The discussion on AMR is an ongoing process reducible neither to parliamentary politics, biomedical science, media or the public. This paper will serve as a point of departure to further explore how these multiple ontological realities of AMR are produced, how they co-exist and how interfere with each other.