Taking 'public understanding' seriously

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 315-325

  Edwards, Jeanette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOLOGY; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; ETHICS; GENE TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0036970393     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770216011     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Augé, M. (1999) An Anthropology for Contemporaneous Worlds (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
2. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind (London: Paladin).
3. Durant, J., Evans, G.E. & Thomas, G.P. (1989) The public understanding of science, Nature, 340, pp. 11-14.
4. Durant, J., Evans, G.E., & Thomas, G.P. (1992) Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science, Public Understanding of Science, 1 (2), pp. 161-82.
5. Durant, J., Hansen, A. & Bauer, M. (1996) Public understanding of the new genetics. In Marteau, T. & Richards, M (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of New Human Genetics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
6. Edwards, J. (1993) Explicit connections: ethnographic enquiry in north-west England. In Edwards, J., Hirsch, E., Franklin, S., Price, F. & Strathern, M. Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception (Manchester: Manchester University Press) (2nd edition 1999, London: Routledge).
7. Edwards, J. (2000) Born and Bred: Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
8. Edwards, J. & Strathern, M. (2000) Including our own. In Carsten, J. (ed.) Cultures of Relatedness: New Directions in Kinship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
9. Edwards, J., Hirsch, E., Franklin, S., Price, F. & Strathern, M. (1993) Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception (Manchester: Manchester University Press) (2nd edition 1999, London: Routledge).
10. Frith, L. (2001) Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate, Human Reproduction, 16 (5), pp. 818-24.
11. Hess, D. (1997) Science Studies (New York: New York University Press).
12. Irwin, A. & Wynne B. (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
13. Lave, J. (1996) The savagery of the domestic mind. In Nader, L (ed.) Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power and Knowledge (London: Routledge).
14. Lock, M., Young, A. & Cambrioso, A. (eds) (2000) Living and Working with the New Medical Technologies: Intersections of Inquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
15. Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. (1998) Contested Natures (London: Sage).
16. McWhinnie, A. (2001) Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents, Human Reproduction, 16 (5), pp. 807-17.
17. Strathern, M. (1996) After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
18. Taussig, M. (1992) The Nervous System (London: Routledge).
19. Wynne, B. (1991) Knowledges in context, Science, Technology and Human Values, 16 (1), pp. 111-21.
20. Wynne, B. (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science, Public Understanding of Science, 1 (3), pp. 281-304.
21. Wynne, B. (1995) Public understanding of science. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, J. & Pinch, T. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage).
22. Yearley, S. (1996) How does the public understand science? An overview of the evidence from recent social scientific research. A report for the ESRC.