Exploring Ambivalence about Genetic Research and its Social Context

Social Theory and Health

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 53-69

  Kerr, Anne ^a   Cunningham Burley, Sarah ^a   Tutton, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Focus groups; Genetics; Lay and professional discourses

Indexed keywords

EID: 47349133647     PISSN: 14778211     EISSN: 1477822X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.sth.8700085     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bauman Z (1991). Modernity and Ambivalence. Polity Press: Cambridge
2. Bauman Z (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Blackwell: Oxford
3. Bauman Z (1997). Postmodernity and its Discontents. Polity Press: Cambridge
4. Beck U (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage: New Delhi
5. Collins HM, Evans R (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235-296
6. Dunkerley D, Glasner P (1998). Empowering the public? Citizens juries and the new genetic technologies. Critical Public Health 8: 181-192
7. Epstein S (1996). Impure Science. AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press: Berkeley
8. Farsides B, Williams C, Alderson P (2004). Aiming towards 'moral equilibrium': health care professionals' views on working within the morally contested field of antenatal screening. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 505-509
9. Giddens A (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy. Polity Press: Cambridge
10. Glasner P, Rothman H (1999). Does familiarity breed concern? Bench scientists and the human genome project. Science and Public Policy 16: 233-240
11. Glasner P, Rothman H (2001). New genetics, new ethics? Globalisation and its discontents health. Risk and Society 3: 245-260
12. Goven J (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: democracy and deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science 12: 423-440
13. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1997). The New Genetics: Professionals'Discursive. Boundaries. Sociological Review 45: 297-303
14. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Tutton R (forthcoming). Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science
15. Nicholas B (2001). Exploring a moral landscape: genetic science and ethics. Hypatia 16: 45-63
16. Merton R, Barber E (1963). Sociological ambivalence. In: Tiryakian EA (ed). Sociological Theory, Values and Sociological Change: Essays in Honor of Piritim A. Sorokin. The Free Press: New York. pp 91-120
17. reprinted in Merton, R. (1976) Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. The Free Press, 1976)
18. Power M (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University
19. Prior L (2003). Belief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(Silver Anniversary Issue): 41-57
20. Roberts C, Franklin S (2004). Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Fertility 7(4): 285-293
21. Scully JL, Rippberger C, Rehmann-Sutter C (2004). Non-professionals' evaluations of gene therapy ethics'. Social Science and Medicine 58: 1415-1425
22. Wynne B (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B and Wynne B (eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Sage: London. pp. 44-83
23. Wynne B (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50: 459-477
24. Yearley S (2000). Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study. Public Understanding of Science 9(2): 105-122
25. Zeiler K (2004). Reproductive autonomous choice-A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of reimplantation genetic diagnosis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 175-183.