Genetic technologies meet the public: The discourses of concern

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 8-28

  Lassen, Jesper ^a   Jamison, Andrew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Ethics; Genetic technology; Public concern, risk

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DENMARK; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; ETHICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

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

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DENMARK; ECOSYSTEM; FOCUS GROUPS; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 30444432948     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243905280021     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Baark, E., and A. Jamison. 1990. Biotechnology and culture: Public debates and their impact on government regulation in the United States and Denmark. Technology in Society 12 (1): 27-44.
2. Bauer, M., and G. Gaskell, eds. 2002. Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Coffey, A., and P. Atkinson. 1996. Making, sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Durant, J., M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere - A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
5. Elzinga, A. 1998. Theoretical perspectives: Culture as a resource for technological change. In The intellectual appropriation of technology. Discourses on modernity 1900-1990, edited by M. Hård and A. Jamison, 21-44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Fern, F. F. 2001. Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
9. Gaskell, G., and M. Bauer, eds. 2001. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
10. Gaskell, G., P. Thompson, and N. Allum. 2002. Worlds apart? Public opinion in Europe and the USA. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 351-75. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B. Wynne. 2000. Wising up: The public and new technologies. Unpublished report, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
12. Jamison, A., and E. Baark. 1990. Modes of biotechnology assessment in the USA, Japan and Denmark. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 2 (2): 111-27.
13. Jamison, A., R. Eyerman, and J. Cramer 1990. The making of the new environmental consciousness. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
14. Jamison, A., and M. Hård. 2003. The story-lines of technological change: Innovation, construction and appropriation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15 (1): 81-92.
15. Kvale, S. 1996: Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Lassen, J., A. Allansdottir, M. Liakoupulos, A. Olsson, and A. T. Mortensen. 2002. Testing times: The reception of Roundup Ready soya in Europe. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 279-312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon. 2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe research project. Available at www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs.htm.
18. Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Nelkin, D. and S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman.
20. Pilnick, A. 2002. Genetics and society: An introduction. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
21. Pline, L. C. 1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16 (4): 474-90.
22. Shiva, V. 2000. Stolen harvest. Boston: South End.
23. Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19 (4): 689-701.
24. Tokar, B., ed. 2001. Redesigning life? The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering. London: Zed Books.
25. Toulmin, S. 2003. The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: Sage.