Reflections on the disciplinary gulf between the natural and social sciences

Community Genetics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 161-169

  Wright, Susan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Disciplinary gulf; Natural sciences; Social responsibility

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE; CONFERENCE PAPER; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ETHICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC PROCEDURES; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MORALITY; NATURAL SCIENCE; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOLOGY;

HUMANS; NATURAL SCIENCES; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 33744955009     PISSN: 14222795     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000092652     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Prial F: Alistair Cooke, off the air: looking back at all those letters. International Herald Tribune, 2004.
2. Kuhn T: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ed. 3. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996, chap 2-4.
3. Novick P: That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989.
4. Williams R: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow, Fontana, 1976, pp 9-22.
5. Shapin S: Trust, honesty, and the authority of science; in Bulger RE, Bobby EM, Fineberg HV (eds): Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine. Washington, National Academy Press, 1995, pp 388-408.
6. Horton R: The dawn of McScience. NY Rev Books 2004;51:4.
7. Galilei G: Letter to the Grand Duchess Cristina; in Drake S (ed): Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Garden City, Doubleday, 1957, p 182.
8. Galilei G: Dialogue on the Great World Systems (revised and annotated by de Santillana G, transl by Salusbury T). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1953, p 63.
9. Hume D: A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978, book 3, pt 1, sect 1.
10. Shapin S: The authority of science and the character of the scientist. Conf'Genomics, Genetics and Society: Bridging the Disciplinary Divide', Toronto, April 2004 - a version of this paper was published as 'The way we trust now: the authority of science and the character of the scientist' in Hoodbhoy P, Glaser D, Shapin S (eds): Trust Me, I'm a Scientist. Birthday Counterpoints, British Council 70th Anniversary Essays on Cultural Relations (ser ed Bechler R). London, British Council, 2004, pp 42-63.
11. Einstein A: Out of My Later Years. New York, Philosophical Library, 1950, pp 21-22, 114; cited in Shapin [10].
12. Medawar P: The Art of the Soluble. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969, p 147.
13. Black M: Is scientific neutrality a myth? in Black M (ed): The Prevalence of Humbug and Other Essays. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1983, pp 77-94.
14. Russell E: War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
15. Rose S, Rose H: The myth of the neutrality of science; in Watson Fuller (ed): The Social Impact of Modern Biology. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.
16. Wright S: Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp 65-112.
17. Anonymous: A two-edged sword. Nature 1972;240:73-74.
18. Brenner S: Evidence for the Ashby Working Party, paper submitted to the Working Party on the Experimental Manipulation of the Genetic Composition of Micro-organisms, 26 September 1974, Recombinant DNA History Collection, MC100. Cambridge, Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, 1974.
19. Sinsheimer RL: Recombinant DNA research (genetic engineering): social implications and potential hazards. Distinguished Lecture Series, University of California, Los Angeles, 1976.
20. Wright S: Molecular Politics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994.
21. Angell M: The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It. New York, Random House, 2004.
22. Krimsky: Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp 132-135.
23. Schechter AN, Perlman RL: Editors' introduction: perspectives in biology and medicine. Symposium on the 25th Anniversary of the Asilomar Conference (Spring 2001). National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, National Academies Press, 2004, pp viii.
24. Tucker J: Biological threat assessment: is the cure worse than the disease? Arms Control Today, October 2004.
25. Wright S: Taking biodefense too far. Bull Atomic Sci 2004;606:58-66.
26. Clarke R: Against All Enemies. New York, The Free Press, 2004.
27. Miller J, Engelberg S, Broad W: Germs. Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. New York, Simon and Schuster, 2001.
28. Rapoport D: Terrorism and weapons of the apocalypse. National Security Studies Quarterly Summer 1995;56-58.
29. Hoffman, B: Change and continuity in terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 2001;24:5
30. Leitenberg M: Biological weapons and bioterrorism in the first years of the 21st century. Polit Life Sci 2002;21:3-27.
31. Mahmoud A, President, Merck Vaccines: Technical, economic, and legal obstacles to the development of vaccines and other therapeutics for potential bioterrorism agents. Princeton, Princeton Biodefense Seminars, Program on Science and Global Security, 2004.
32. Lamb G: New buffer for bioterrorism's tempest. Christian Science Monitor, 2004, p 14.
33. Gallucci R: Keynote Address, Osiris 2004 Workshop, Science, Technology, and International Affairs: Historical Perspectives, Georgetown University, 2004.
34. Bernauer T: Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003.
35. Winickoff D, Jasanoff S, Busch L, Grove-White R, Wynne B: Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk, and democracy in world trade law. Yale J International Law 2005;30:30.