Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 150-171

  Horst, Maja ^a  

^a Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Gene therapy; Mass media; PUS; Scientific citizenship; Sociology of expectations

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847614302     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243906296852     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Andersen, I-E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331-340.
2. Bauer, M. 2002. Arenas, platforms, and the biotechnology movement. Science Communication 24 (2): 144-161.
3. Berkowitz, D., ed. 1997. Social meanings of news. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Beware of panic decisions. 1999. Politiken, August 29.
5. Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster. 2000. Introducing contested futures: From looking into the future to looking at the future. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, edited by N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster, 3-20. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
6. CD proposes increased inspection of gene therapy. 1999. Jyllandsposten, October 31.
7. Cook, T. E. 1998. Governing with the news. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Danske Dagblades Forening. 2006. Læsertal 2000-2004. http://www.danskedagblade.dk/dCMS/application.do (accessed October 2006).
9. Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage. Doctors criticise Aarhus-politician. 1999. Jyllandsposten, July 25.
10. Doctors under severe pressure from patients. 1999. Jyllandsposten, July 25.
11. Durant, J. 1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 313-319.
12. Foucault, M. 1992. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
13. Foucault, M.. 2000. Governmentality. In Michel Foucault: Power, edited J. D. Faubion, 201-222. London: Penguin.
14. Gutteling, J. M., A. Olofsson, M. Kohring, B. Fjæstad, A. Goerke, M. Bauer, and T. Rusanen. 2002. Media coverage 1973-1996: Trends and dynamics. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 95-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Habermas, J. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. The drugs don't work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 327-364.
17. Holtzman, N. A., and T. M. Marteau. 2000. Will genetics revolutionize medicine? New England Journal of Medicine 343 (2): 141-144.
18. Horst, M. 2003. Controversy and collectivity: Articulations of social and natural order in mass mediated representations of biotechnology. PhD thesis, Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
19. In search for genious. 1999. Jyllandsposten, July 25. Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science (10): 1 - 18.
20. Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
21. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
22. Jelsøe, E., J. Lassen, A. T. Mortensen, H. Frederiksen, and M. W. Kamara. 1998. Denmark. In Biotechnology in the public sphere, edited by J. Durant, G. Gaskell and M. Bauer, 29-42. London: Science Museum.
23. Levidow, L., and C. Marris. 2001. Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy 28 (5): 345-360.
24. Liver cancer patient cured with genes. 1999. Ekstra Bladet, September 19.
25. Locke, S. 1999. Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science (8): 75-92.
26. Locke, S.. 2002. The public understanding of science: A rhetorical invention. Science, Technology, & Human Values 27 (1): 87-111.
27. McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity.
28. Michael, M. 1998. Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the "public understandings of science." Public Understanding of Science (7): 313-327.
29. Michael, M.. 2000. Futures of the present: From performativity to prehension. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, edited by N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster, 21-39. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
30. Michael, M.. 2001. Technoscientific bespoking: Animals, publics and the new genetics. New Genetics and Society 20 (3): 205-224.
31. Michael, M.. 2002. Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 27 (3): 357-378.
32. Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science (10): 115-120.
33. Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
34. Nelkin, D., ed. 1979. Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35. Nelkin, D., and S. M. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman.
36. Oxford English Dictionary. 2006. http://www.oed.com (accessed December 18, 2006).
37. Patients given good odds. 1999. Jyllandsposten, August 22. The price of hope. 1999. Jyllandsposten, August 22.
38. Priest, S. H. 2001. A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
39. Professor speaks out. 1999. Jyllandsposten, July 11.
40. Reprimand in cancer research case. 1999. Politiken, July 28.
41. Reprimand to doctors in the gene case from Aarhus. 1999. Ekstra Bladet, October 15.
42. Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Stockdale, A. 1999. Waiting for the cure: Mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research. Sociology of Health and Illness 21 (5): 579-596.
44. The system requires bookkeepers. 1999. Ekstra Bladet, September 7.
45. Tightened regulations. 1999. Jyllandsposten, July 10.
46. Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. J. Pinch, 361-388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.