Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 113-133

  Kerr, Anne ^a   Cunningham Burley, Sarah ^a   Amos, Amanda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BEHAVIOR GENETICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHILD; CONSUMER; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; FREEDOM; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL GENETICS; MENTAL STRESS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ABORTION, EUGENIC; CHILD; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; EUGENICS; FOCUS GROUPS; FREEDOM; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; GENETICS, BEHAVIORAL; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMANS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIANS; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH; SCOTLAND; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; STEREOTYPING; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 0032034939     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096366259800700202     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Amanda Amos, "The New Genetics and Health: Mobilizing Lay Expertise," Public Understanding of Science 7 (1998) no. I: 41-60;
2. Jon Turney, "The Public Understanding of Genetics: Where Next?" European Journal of Genetics and Society 1 (1995) no. 1: 5-20;
3. Brian Wynne, "Knowledges in Context," Science, Technology, and Human Values 19 (1991) no. 1: 1-17;
4. Brian Wynne, "Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science," Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 281-304;
5. Brian Wynne, "The Public Understanding of Science," in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald Markel, James Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (London: Sage Publications, 1995), 361-88.
6. Rachel Iredale and Marcus Longley, "Citizens' Juries: Getting Non-Scientists Involved"; Unpublished paper, 1997, University of Glamorgan, Wales;
7. Aidan Davison, Ian Barns, and Renato Schibeci, "Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology," Science, Technology, and Human Values 22 (1997) no. 3: 317-48.
8. Kerr et al, "The New Genetics and Health."
9. The project was funded under the ESRC's Risk and Human Behaviour Programme, 1994-97, Grant No. L211252003.
10. Kerr et al, "The New Genetics and Health."
11. Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Amanda Amos, "The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries," Sociological Review 45 (1997) no. 2: 279-303.
12. The notation beside any direct quotes specifies the group number (G1-G20) and the participants' responses (R1, R2, etc.)
13. Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Anne Kerr, and Stephen Pavis, "Theorising Subjects and Subject Matter: The Challenge of Focus Group Research," in Developing Focus Group Research: Theory, Practice and Politics, eds. Rose Barbour and Jenny Kitzinger (London: Sage, 1998, forthcoming).
14. While this summary provides a useful guide to the types of groups we interviewed, it does not account for the different levels and types of experiences that members of the groups had of genetics or science. For example, the group of nurses had different amounts and types of experiences with genetics, and people in some of the groups had formal science training.
15. Cunningham-Burley et al., "Theorising Subjects and Subject Matter."
16. This is a distinction which often appears in scientists' accounts where they are downplaying their responsibility for the consequences of research. See Kerr et al, "The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries";
17. Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Amanda Amos, "Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain: Examining Contemporary Professionals' Accounts," Science, Technology, and Human Values (1998, forthcoming).
18. Here we draw on our previous analysis of professional accounts, presented in Kerr et al, "The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries";
19. Anne Kerr et al, "Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain."
20. See also House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetics: The Science and Its Consequence (HMSO: London, 1995);
21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, 1993).
22. See Kerr et al, "The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries";
23. Kerr et al, "Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain."
24. It should be noted that although we interviewed professionals on a one-to-one basis and their accounts might have been more reflexive if they had been in groups, their shared professional values and their tendency to repeat similar arguments in a variety of forums means that our argument stands.