Arenas, platforms, and the biotechnology movement

Science Communication

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 144-161

  Bauer, Martin W ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036459857     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107554702237841     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. Bauer, M. 1991. Resistance to change - A monitor of new technology? Systems Practice 4:181-96.
2. _. 1995a, Technophobia: A misleading conception of resistance to new technology. In Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology, biotechnology, edited by M. Bauer, 97-123. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. _. 1995b. Towards a functional analysis of resistance. In Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology, biotechnology, edited by M. Bauer, 393-418. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bauer, M., G. Gaskell, and J. Durant. 1994. Biotechnology and the European public. An international study of policy, media coverage and public perceptions, 1980-1996. Unpublished manuscript. Science Museum, London/London School of Economics, April.
5. Bauer, M. W. 2001. Biotechnology: Ethical framing in the elite press. Politeia 17 (63): 51-66.
6. _. 2002. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11 (2): 93-111.
7. Bauer, M. W., and H. Bonfadelli. 2002. Controversy, mass media coverage and public knowledge. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 149-75. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bauer, M. W., and G. Gaskell. 1999. Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29 (2): 163-86.
9. _, eds. 2002a. Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. _. 2002b. The biotechnology movement: Assimilating and accommodating the public sphere. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 379-404. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Bauer, M. W., M. Kohring, A. Allansdottir, and J. Gutteling. 2001. The dramatisation of biotechnology in the elite mass media. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 35-53. London: Science Museum.
12. Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Blumenberg, H. 1996. Aus dem Nachlass. Stuttgart, Germany: Philipp Reclam Junior.
14. Bud, R. 1993. The uses of life: A history of biotechnology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Bühler, K. [1934] 1999. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart, Germany: Lucius & Lucius.
16. Durant, J., M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source book. London: Science Museum.
17. Durant, J., A. Hansen, and M. Bauer. 1996. The public understanding of new genetics. In The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics, edited by T. Marteau and M.P.M. Richards, 235-47. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Eichenwald, K., G. Kolata, and M. Petersen. 2001. Redesigning nature: Hard lessons learned; Biotechnology food: From the lab to a debacle. The New York Times, 25 January, A1.
19. Einsiedel, E. 2001. Citizen voices: Public participation on biotechnology. Politeia 17 (63): 94-104.
20. Einsiedel, E., A. Allansdottir, N. C. Allum, M. W. Bauer, A. Berthomier, A. Chatjouli, S. de Cheveigne, R. Downey, J. M. Gutteling, M. Kohring, M. Leonarz, F. Manzoli, A. Olofsson, A. Przestalski, T. Rusanen, F. Seifert, A. Stathopoulou, and W. Wagner. 2002. Brave new sheep - The clone named Dolly. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 313-47. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Ernst & Young. 2002. Beyond borders. The global biotechnology report 2002, UK. Retrieved from www.ey.com/beyondborders.
22. Farr, R., and S. Moscovici, eds. 1984. Social representations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Galloux, J. C., A. T. Mortensen, S. de Cheveigne, A. Allansdottir, A. Chatjouli, and G. Sakellaris. 2002. The institutions of bioethics: A comparison of Denmark, France, Italy and Greece. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 129-48. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Gaskell, G., N. Allum, W. Wagner, T. H. Nielsen, E. Jelsoe, M. Kohring, and M. Bauer. 2001. In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 53-78. London: Science Museum.
25. Gaskell, G., and M. W. Bauer, eds. 2001. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
26. Gaskell, G., J. Durant, W. Wagner, H. Torgerson, E. Einsiedel, E. Jelsoe, H. Fredrickson, J. Lassen, T. Rusanen, D. Boy, S. de Cheveigne, J. Hampel, A. Stathopoulou, A. Allansdottir, C. Midden, T. Nielsen, A. Przestalski, T. Twardowski, B. Fjaestad, S. Olsson, A. Olofsson, M. Bauer, and M. Liakopoulos. 1997. Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature 387:845-47.
27. Grabner, P., J. Hampel, N. Lindsey, and H. Torgersen. 2001. Biopolitical diversity: The challenge of multi-level policymaking. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 15-34. London: Science Museum.
28. Gross, A. 1990. The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Gutteling, J. M., A. Olofsson, B. Fjaestad, M. Kohring, A. Goerke, M. W. Bauer, and T. Rusanen. 2002. Media coverage: Trends and dynamics in the opinion-leading press. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 95-128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Habermas, J. [1981] 1984. The theory of communicative action. Reason and rationalisation of society, vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
31. _. [1962] 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
32. Hood, C. 1998. The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
33. House of Lords. 2000. Science and society. 3d report by the Select Committee to Consider Science and Technology. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
34. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Lassen, J., A. Allansdottir, M. Liakopoulos, A. T. Mortensen, and A. Olofsson. 2002. Testing times - The reception of Round-Up Ready soya in Europe. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 279-312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36. Latour, B. 1988. The prince for machines as well as for machinations. In Technology as social process, edited by B. Elliott, 20-43. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
37. Neidhardt, F. 1993. The public as a communication system. Public Understanding of Science 2:339-50.
38. Neue Zuercher Zeitung. 2002. Ueberleben der Tuechtigsten in der Biotech Branche, Boersen und Markte (9 August) no 182, p 15.
39. New body to boost GM debate in UK. 2002. Agra Europe Weekly, London (8 February). Retrieved from www.agra-europe.com.
40. New Scientist. 2002. How many lawyers does it take.... 174:3.
41. Nielsen, T. H., and S. F. Berg. 2001. Goethe's humunculus and Shelley's monster: On the romantic prototypes of modern biotechnology. Politeia 17 (63):37-50.
42. Nielsen, T. H., E. Jelsoe, and S. Ohman. 2002. Traditional blue and modern green resistance: The complexities of scepticism. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 179-202. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Noelle-Neumann, E. 1974. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion Journal of Communication 24:43-51.
44. Plain, J. C. 1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16:474-90.
45. Powers, L. F. 2002. Investor perspectives on biotech - Sector finally reaches critical mass coveted by investors. Genetic Engineering News 22 (3): 6-8.
46. Seris, J.P. 2000. La technique. Paris: PUF.
47. Torgersen, H., and J. Hampel. 2001. The Gate/Resonance Model, The interface of policy, media and the public in technology conflicts. ITA manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/pdf/ita_01_03.pdf.
48. Torgersen, H., J. Hampel, M.-L. von Bergmann-Winberg, E. Bridgman, J. Durant, E. Einsiedel, B. Fjaestad, G. Gaskell, P. Grabner, P. Hieber, E. Jelsoe, J. Lassen, A. Marouda-Chatjoulis, T. Nielsen, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, F. Seifert, C. Smink, T. Twardowski, and M. W. Kamara. 2002. Promise, problems and proxies: 25 years of European debate and regulation. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 21-94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Wagner, W., N. Kronberger, G. Gaskell, A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, S. de Cheveigne, U. Dahinden, C. Diego, L. Montali, A. T. Mortensen, W. Pfenning, T. Rusanen, and N. Seger. 2001. Nature in disorder: The troubled public of biotechnology. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 96-115. London: Science Museum.