Natural and unnatural: Activists' representations of animal biotechnology

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 137-157

  Pivetti, Monica ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA MODIFICATION; EMOTION; HUMAN CLONING; LIGHT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MORALITY; NATURAL SELECTION; NONHUMAN; ORGAN DONOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SOCIETY; VIVISECTION; XENOTRANSPLANTATION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 34548301229     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770701466840     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. AEBC (2002) Animals and Biotechnology (London: AEBC), available at〈http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report. pdf〉 (accessed March 2003).
2. Agamben, G. (2002) L'Ouvert: De l'Homme et de l'Animal (Paris: Rivages).
3. Allansdottir, A., Jovchelovitch, S. & Stathopoulou, A. (1993) Social representations: the versatility of a concept, Papers on Social Representations, 3(2), available at 〈http://www.psr.jku.at/PSR1993/ 2_1993Alla1.pdf〉 (accessed March 2002).
4. Baratay, E. (2003) Et l'Homme créa l'Animal (Paris: Odile Jacob).
5. Bauer, M. (2000) Classical content analysis: a review. In Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (eds) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook (London: Sage), pp. 131-51.
6. Bauer, M.W. et al. (1994) European public perception of science, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), pp. 163-86.
7. Billig, M. (1988) Social representations, objectification and anchoring: a rhetorical analysis, Social Behaviour, 3, pp. 1-16.
8. Bloor, M. et al. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research (London: Sage).
9. Boyd Group, The (1999) Genetic engineering: animal welfare and ethics. A discussionpaper from the Boyd Group, available at 〈http://www.boyd-group. demon.co.uk/genmod.htm〉 (accessed March 2003).
10. Breakwell, G. (2002) Research in the UK on Public Attitudes to Biotechnology with Animals (London: AEBC), availablat at 〈http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report. pdf〉 (accessed March 2003).
11. Brown, N. (1999a) Debates in xenotransplantation: on the consequences of contradiction, New Genetics and Society, 18(2), pp. 181-96.
12. Brown, N. (1999b) Xenotransplantation: normalizing disgust, Science as Culture, 8(2), pp. 327-55.
13. Brown, N. & Michael, M. (2001) Switching between science and culture in transpecies transplantation, Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(1), pp. 3-22.
14. Buston, K. (1997) NUD*IST in action: its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people, Sociological Research Online, 2(3), available at 〈http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/6. html〉 (accessed 15 July 2004).
15. Byford, J. (2002) Anchoring and abjectifying 'neocortical warfare': re-presentation of a biological metaphor in Serbian conspiracy literature, Papers on Social Representations, 11(3), available at 〈http://www.swp.uni.linz.ac.at/psr.htm〉 (accessed August 2006).
16. Descola, P. (1996) Constructing natures: symbolic ecology and social practice. In Descola, P. & Palsson, G. (eds) Nature and Society (London/New York: Routledge).
17. Durant, J., Evans, G. & Thomas, G. (1992) Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science, Public Understanding of Science, 1, pp. 174-82.
18. Edwards, J. (1997) Discourse and Cognition (London: Sage).
19. Edwards, J. (2002) Taking public understanding seriously, New Genetics and Society, 21(3), pp. 315-25.
20. EORG (2002) Eurobarometer 58.0, available at 〈http://europa. eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_180_en.pdf〉 (accessed May 2004).
21. Evans, G. & Durant, J. (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science, 4, pp. 57-74.
22. Francione, G.L. (1998) Animal rights and new welfarism. In M. Bekoff & Meaney, C.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (Westport: Greenwood Press), p. 45.
23. Galvin, S. & Herzog, Jr., H.A. (1992) Ethical ideology, animal activism and attitudes toward the treatment of animals, Ethics and Behavior, 2, pp. 141-9.
24. Gaskell, G. et al. (2000) Biotechnology in the European public, Nature Biotechnology, 18, pp. 935-8.
25. Genewatch (2002)Genetically modified and cloned animals. All in a good cause? Available at 〈http://www.genewatch.org/GManimals/Reports/ GManimalsRept.pdf〉 (accessed March 2003).
26. Hampel, J., Pfenning, U. & Peter, H. (2000) Attitudes towards genetic engineering, New Genetics and Society, 19(3), pp. 233-49.
27. Harré, R. (1984) Some reflections on the concept of social representations, Social Research, 51, pp. 927-38.
28. Herzog, H.A. (1993) The movement is my life: the psychology of animal rights activism, Journal of Social Issues, 49, pp. 103-19.
29. Horigan, S. (1988) Nature and Culture in Western Discourses (London: Routledge).
30. Jahoda, G. (1988) Critical notes and reflections on 'social representations', European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), pp. 195-209.
31. Jamison, W. & Lunch, W. (1992) The rights of animals, science policy and political activism, Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, pp. 438-58.
32. Jasper, J.M. & Poulsen, J.D. (1995) Recruiting strangers and friends: moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests, Social Problems, 42, pp. 493-512.
33. Kitzinger, J. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants, Sociology of Health, 16(1), pp. 103-21.
34. Knodel, J. (1993) The design and analysis of focus group studies: a practical approach. In Morgan, D. (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (London: Sage), pp. 35-50.
35. Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd edn. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
36. Krueger, R.A. (2000) Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
37. Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A (2000) Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edn. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
38. Kruse, C. (1999) Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights, Society and Animals, 7(3), available at 〈http://www.psyeta.org/sa/ sa7.3/kruse.shtml〉 (accessed July 2004).
39. Macnaghten, P. (2001) Animal futures. Public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals and biotechnology in contemporary Britain. Report by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public policy for the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission, available at 〈http://www.aebc.gov. uk/aebc/pdf/macnaghten_animals_futures.pdf〉 (accessed March 2004).
40. Martinelli, D. (2002) How Musical is a Whale? Towards a Theory of Zoömusicology (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
41. Merton, R.K. (1987) The focussed interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuities, Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(4), pp. 550-66.
42. Michael, M. (2001) Technoscientific bespoking: animals, publics and the new genetics, New Genetics and Society, 20(3), pp. 205-24.
43. Michael, M. & Brown, N. (2004) The meat of the matter: grasping and judging xenotransplantation, Public Understanding of Science, 13, pp. 379-97.
44. Midgley, M. (1983) Animals and Why They Matter (Athens: University of Georgia Press).
45. Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus Group as Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage).
46. Moscovici, S. (1973) Foreword. In Herzlich, C., Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis (London: Academic Press).
47. Moscovici, S. (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In Farr, J. & Moscovici, S. (eds) Social Representations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 3-69.
48. Moscovici, S. (1988) Notes towards a description of social representations, European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, pp. 211-50.
49. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D.D. & Dingwall, R. (1999) The influence of popular cultural imagery on public attitudes towards cloning, Sociological Research Online, 4(3), available at 〈http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/ 3/nerlich.html〉 (accessed March 2004).
50. Nibert, D. (1994) Animal rights and human social issues, Society and Animals, 2, pp. 115-24, available at 〈http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa2.2/ nibert.html〉 (accessed 10 January 2003).
51. Peek, C.W., Bell, N.J. & Dunham, C.C. (1996) Gender, gender ideology, and animal rights advocacy, Gender and Society, 10, pp. 464-78.
52. Pfister, H.-R., Böhm, G. & Jungermann, H. (2000) The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: knowledge and evaluations, New Genetics and Society, 19, pp. 295-316.
53. Plous, S. (1991) An attitude survey of animal rights activists, Psychological Science, 2, pp. 194-6.
54. Potter, J. & Billig, M. (1992) Re-presenting representations, Ongoing Production on Social Representations, 1, pp. 15-20.
55. Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour (London: Sage).
56. Räty, H. & Snellman, L. (1992) Making the unfamiliar familiar - some notes on the criticism of the theory of social representations, Papers on Social Representations, 1(1), pp. 3-14, available at 〈http://www.psr.jku. at/psrindex.htm〉 (accessed March 2003).
57. Regan, T. (1988) The Case for Animal Rights (London: Routledge).
58. Richards, T.J. & Richards, L. (1994) Using computers in qualitative analysis. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Berkeley, CA: Sage), pp. 445-62.
59. Rivera, A. (2000) Homo Sapiens e Mucca Pazza [Homo Sapiens and Mad Cow] (Bari: Dedalo).
60. Rollin, B. (1995) The Frankenstein Syndrome. Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
61. Rouquette, M.-L. & Flament, C. (2003) Anatomie des Idées Ordinaries [Anatomy of Everyday Ideas] (Paris: A. Colin).
62. Royal Society, The (2001) The Use of Genetically Modified Animals (London: The Royal Society), available at 〈http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/ statfiles/document-139.pdf〉 (accessed March 2003).
63. Shapiro, K. (1994) The caring sleuth: portrait of an animal rights activist, Society and Animals, 2(2), available at 〈http://www. psyeta.org/sa/sa2.2/shapiro.html〉 (accessed 10 January 2003).
64. Singer, E., Corning, A. & Lamias, M. (1998) The polls - trends: genetic testing, engineering, and therapy; awareness and attitudes, Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, pp. 633-64.
65. Singer, P. (1977) Animal Liberation (London: Granada).
66. Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice (London: Sage).
67. Straughan, R. (2000) Ethics, Morality and Animal Biotechnology. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), available at 〈http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/tools/download/ethics_animal_biotech/ ethics_animal_biotech.pdf〉 (accessed March 2002).
68. Sutherland, A. & Nash, J.E. (1994) Animal rights as a new environmental cosmology, Qualitative Sociology, 17(2), pp. 171-86.
69. van Dijk, T. (1991) Racism and the Press (London: Routledge).
70. Wagner, W. (1994) Fields of research and socio-genesis of social representations: a discussion of criteria and diagnosis, Social Science Information, 33(2), pp. 199-228.
71. Wagner, W. & Kronberger, N. (2001) Killer tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with biotechnology. In Deaux, K. & Philogene, G. (eds) Representations of the Social - Bridging Theoretical Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 131-55.
72. Wagner, W. & Kronberger, N. (2002a) Discours et appropriation symbolique de la biotechnologie [Discourse and symbolic coping with biotechnology]. In Garnier, C. & Rouquette, M.-L. (eds) Les Formes de la Pensée Sociale (Paris: Press Universitaires de France).
73. Wagner, W. & Kronberger, N. (2002b) Mémoires des mythes vecus - représentations de la technologie génétique [Memories of myths we live with - representations of genetic engineering]. In Laurens, St. & Roussiau, N. (eds) La Mémoire Sociale: Représentations et Identité Sociales (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes), available at 〈http://www.swp.uni-linz.ac.at/content2/staff/wagner/ material_ww/WagnerKronberger2002.pdf〉 (accessed March 2003).
74. Wagner, W., Elejabarrieta, F. & Lahnsteiner, I. (1995) How the sperm dominates the ovum: objectification by metaphor in the social representation of reproduction, European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, pp. 671-88.
75. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. & Seifert, F. (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, pp. 323-43.