The challenges of translating genomic knowledge

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 433-437

  Einsiedel, Edna F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Genetics and publics; Genomic knowledge; Genomics communication; Knowledge translation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; ETHNIC GROUP; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SERVICE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RACE DIFFERENCE; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL INTERACTION; WORKSHOP;

COMMUNICATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS, MEDICAL; GENOMICS; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MASS MEDIA; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33749482783     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00682.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. CIHR. Knowledge translation strategy 2004-2009: Innovation in action. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2004.
2. Hilgartner S. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Soc Stud Science 1990: 20: 519-539.
3. Miller J. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 1983: 112 (2): 29-48.
4. Wynne B. Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle SG, Petersen J, Pinch T, eds. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: 1995: 361-388.
5. Einsiedel EF. Publics problematized in the public understanding of science. In: Dierkes M, Van Grote C, eds. Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. Reading, MA: Harwood Academic Press, 2000: 205-216.
6. http://www.nowgen.org.uk [Accessed 25 May 2006]
7. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H. The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Sci Pub Policy 1998: 25 (3): 195-203.
8. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London, UK: Sage, 1994.
9. Hedgcoe E. Terminology and the construction of scientific disciplines: the case of pharmacogenomics. Sci Tech Hum Values 2003: 28 (4): 513-537.
10. Gaskell G, Einsiedel E, Hallman W, Priest S, Jackson J, Olsthoorn J. Social values and the governance of science. Science 2005: 310: 1908-1909.
11. National Science Foundation. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In: Science and engineering indicators 2005. Washington, DC. National Science Board 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation.
12. Nisbet M, Huge M. Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard Intl Jour Press Pol 2006: 11 (2): 3-40.
13. Andreopoulous S. Gene cloning by press conference. N Engl J Med 1980: 304 (13): 743-746.
14. Nelkin D, Lindee MS. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: WH Freeman, 1995.
15. Condit C. What is 'public opinion' about genetics? Nat Rev Genet 2001: 2: 811-815.
16. Condit CM. How the public understands genetics: Non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the 'blueprint' metaphor. Pub Und Sci 1999: 8: 169-180.
17. Ponder M, Lee J, Green J, Richards M. Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases: A study of young people and their parents. J Med Genet 1996: 33: 485-492.
18. McBride CM, Halabi S, Bepler G et al. Maximizing the motivational impact of feedback of lung cancer susceptibility on smokers' desire to quit. J Health Commun 2000: 5: 229-241.
19. McGinnis JM, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002: 21 (2): 78-93.
20. Brownson RC, Eriksen MP, David RM, Warne KE. Environmental tobacco smoke: Health effects and policies to reduce exposure. Annu Rev Public Health 1999: 18: 163-185.
21. Brownson RC, Hopkins DP, Wakefield MA. Effects of smoking restrictions in the workplace. Annu Rev Public Health 2002: 23: 333-348.
22. Lock M, guest ed. Genomics, genetics, and society: Bridging the disciplinary divides. Community Genet 2006: 9: 133-222 (Special Issue).