Key and emerging themes in gene editing: A lexicometric analysis of publications in the biological sciences (1990–2022)

Various techniques to modify genomes have been developed over the past decades, from molecular cloning to gene editing techniques. What are their applications? What are the key themes discussed by scientists? To answer these questions, we provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 14,739 scientific articles published between 1990 to 2022 showing that some themes are constant over time, such as the molecular aspects of genetics and discussions about data and software, while other themes emerged more recently. For example, CRISPR/Cas9 became prominent from 2012 onwards, and applications in agriculture and policy/regulatory implications from 2015 onwards. This mixed method opens up new spaces for dialogue between the natural and social sciences and captures the shifting boundaries of science. The article analyzes publications in the biological sciences concerned with genetic engineering, in particular gene editing, between 1990 and 2022 to examine key and emerging themes. It provides a lexicometric analysis of 14,739 articles, which were subdivided into four periods (1990–2011, 2012–2015, 2016–2018, and 2019–2022). We show that certain themes are constant over time, such as the molecular aspects of genetic engineering techniques and discussions about data and software. Other themes, however, have emerged at specific moments in time: CRISPR/Cas9 became prominent from 2012 onwards and applications in agriculture and policy and regulatory implications from 2015 onwards. We observe, in particular, a semantic shift from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to crops. The article contributes to debates about the boundaries of science by shedding light on the temporal dynamics of boundary‐work and by showing how the frames of scientific debates can shift to account for the political aspects of science. We conclude that the dialogue between the natural and social sciences can be strengthened by showing that apart from scientometric approaches, there are other methods to analyze “what counts” in science.