Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science

Risk Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 921-933

  Barnett, J ^a   Cooper, H ^a   Senior, V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Engagement; Genetic science; Public efficacy; Trust

Indexed keywords

CLONING; DECISION MAKING; GENES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ATTENTIVENESS; GENE THERAPY; POLICYMAKER; PUBLIC INCLUSION; SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS; SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY; STAKEHOLDER GROUPS;

RISK ANALYSIS;

GENETICS; MAP; PERCEPTION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AWARENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GENE THERAPY; GENETICS; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MOLECULAR CLONING; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC RELATIONS; TRUST;

ATTITUDE; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENETICS; HUMANS; PUBLIC OPINION; TRUST;

EID: 35448936310     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00932.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health, 13 (4 623 649.
2. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 77 80.
3. Bennett, P., & Calman, K. (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4. Bromley, C., Curtice, J., & Seyd, B. (2001). Political engagement, trust and constitutional reform. In A. Park et al. (Eds British Social Attitudes: The 18th Report (pp. 199 225). London:Sage.
5. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 2001). Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. London:Stationary Office.
6. Department of Trade & Industry 2001). Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century. London:Stationary Office.
7. Department of Trade & Industry 2003). GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London:Stationary Office.
8. Duffy, B. (2004). Life Satisfaction and Trust in Other People. London:MORI.
9. 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 (2 161 182.
10. Earle, T., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society. Wesport, CT:Praeger.
11. European Commission 2005). Europeans, Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 224/Wave 63.1.
12. Fernández-Ballesteros, R., Díez-Nicolás, J., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Determinants and structural relation of personal efficacy to collective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (1 107 125.
13. Fioriono, D. (1990). Environmental risk and democratic processes: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 501.
14. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Sterling, VA:Earthscan Publications.
15. Gaskell, G. (2004). Science policy and society: The British debate over GM agriculture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15, 241 245.
16. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M. W., Jackson, J., Howard, S., & Lindsey, N. (2003). Climate change for biotechnology? UK public opinion 1991-2002. AgbioForum, 6 (1&2 1 12.
17. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project Sciences in European Society.
18. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., Wagner, W., Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy (pp. 56 79). London:Science Museum Publications.
19. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., & Bardes, J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24 (1 185 194.
20. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Meyer, S., & Wynne, B. (1997). Uncertain World: GMOs, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster:CSEC, Lancaster University.
21. Harrison, S., & Mort, M. (1998). Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration, 32 (1 60 70.
22. Hobson-West, P. (2003). Understanding vaccination resistance: Moving beyond risk. Health, Risk and Society, 5, 273 283.
23. Horlick Jones, T., Walls, T., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & Riordan, T. (2004). A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Debate. Understanding Risk working paper (04-02). Norwich:Centre for Environmental Risk.
24. House of Lords 2000). Science and Society, 3rd report. London:HMSO.
25. Human Genetics Commission 2001). Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information: People's Panel Quantitative Study. London:Human Genetics Commission.
26. Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. OUP:Maidenhead.
27. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstructions of Science and Technology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
28. Jasanoff, S. (1997). Civilisation and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science, 6 (3 221 232.
29. Kasperson, R. E. (2000). Risk and the stakeholder express. RISK Newsletter, 4, 3.
30. Levitt, M., Weiner, K., & Goodacre, J. (2005). Gene week: A novel way of consulting the public. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 67 79.
31. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE research project. Commission of European Communities FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI).
32. Marsh, B. (2003). The designer baby created to save his brother's life. Daily Mail, July. Available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=311812.
33. Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension, heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27 (3 357 378.
34. Miller, J. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedelus, 11, 29 48.
35. MORI 1999). Public Support for Controversial Technologies Could Increase if Applications Are Explained. MORI Poll.
36. MORI 2000). The Role of Scientists in Public Debate. London:Research conducted for the Wellcome Trust.
37. MORI 2003). 7 Out of 10 Members of the Public Support the Use of Embryos for Medical Research. MORI poll for the Association of Medical Research Charities. April 3.
38. MORI 2005). Science in Society. Office for Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. London:Stationary Office.
39. Office of Science and Technology 2000). Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. London:Stationary Office.
40. Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds 2004). British Social Attitudes: The 21st Report. London:Sage.
41. Petts, J., & Brooks, C. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision making: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38 (6 1045 1059.
42. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003a). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23 (5 961 972.
43. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003b). Public perceptions of genetically modified food and crops and the GM Nation? Public debate on the commercialisation of agricultural biotechnology in the UK. Technical report of a British survey. Centre for Environmental Risk: University of East Anglia.
44. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 24 (6 1475 1486.
45. Prime Minister 2002). Science Matters. London:Royal Society. April 10.
46. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25 (1 3 29.
47. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on evaluating the UK GM Nation debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 331 352.
48. Siegriest, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20 (5 730 719.
49. Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2005). A joined-up approach to user participation in public services: Strengthening the participation chain. Social Policy & Administration, 39, 260 283.
50. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science and society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55 74.
51. Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., Fife-Schaw, C., & Shepherd, R. (2004). Genomic science: Emerging public opinion. In A. Park et al. (Eds British Social Attitudes: The 21st Report (pp. 119 147). London:Sage.
52. Veenstra, G. (2000). Social capital and health. Social Science and Medicine, 54 (6 849 868.
53. Vidal, J. (2003). 5 to 1 against GM crops in biggest ever public survey. Guardian, 25 September.
54. Walls, J., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A. & Horlick Jones, T. (2004). Critical trust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety regulation. Health, Risk and Society, 6 (2 133 150.
55. Wilsden, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London:DEMOS.
56. Worcester, R. M. (2001). Science and society: What scientists and the public can learn from each other. Proceedings of the Royal Institution, 71, 97 160.
57. Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10 (4 445 481.
58. Yearley, S. (2000). Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and one case study. Public Understanding of Science, 9 (1 105 122.