NGOs and GMOs a case study in alternative science communication

Javnost

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 55-72

  Maeseele, Pieter ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 74349083739     PISSN: 13183222     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2009.11009014     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Allan, Stuart, Adam Barbara and Cynthia Carter, eds. 2000. Environmental Risks and the Media. London: Routledge.
2. Anderson, Alison. 2000. Environmental Pressure Politics and the "Risk Society.' In S. Allan, A. Barbara, and C. Carter (eds.), Environmental Risks and the Media, 93-104. London: Routledge.
3. Andersson, Kjell. 2008. Transparency and Accountability in Science and Politics. The Awareness Principle. Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
4. Baskaran, Angathevar and Rebecca Boden. 2004. Science: A Controversial Commodity. Science, Technology & Society 9, 1, 1-26.
5. Bauer, Martin and Massimiano Bucchi, eds. 2007. Journalism, Science and Society. Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge.
6. Bauer, Martin and George Gaskell, eds. 2002. Biotechnology - The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bauer, Martin and Jane Gregory. 2007. From Journalism to Corporate Communication in Postwar Britain. In M. W. Bauer and M. Bucchi (eds.), Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, 33-52. New York: Routledge.
8. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
9. Benford, Robert and David Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26, 1, 611-39.
10. Boschen, Stefan, Karen Kastenhofer, Luitgard Marshall, et al. 2006. Scientific Cultures of Non-Knowledge in the Controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The Cases of Molecular Biology and Ecology, GAlA 15, 4, 294-301.
11. Bucchi, Massimiano. 1996. When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science 5, 4, 375-94.
12. Caulfield, Timothy. 2004. Biotechnology and the Popular Press: Hype and the Selling of Science. Trends in Biotechnology 22, 7, 337-39.
13. Caulfield, Timothy. 2005. Popular Media, Biotechnology and the "Cycle of Hype." Journal of Health Law and Policy 5, 213-33.
14. David, Matthew. 2005. Science in Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Epstein, Steven. 1995. The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. Science, Technology & Human Values 20, 4, 408-37.
16. European Communities. 1998. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Official Journal of the European Communities 41 (L213), 13-21.
17. Ferree, Myra Marx, William Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht, eds. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse. Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Fillieulle, Olivier and Anne Marijnen. 2004. Alliances for All and Europeanisation for a Few: Anti GMOs Mobilizations in France. Paper presented at the ECPR Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 13-18 April 2004.
19. Gamson, William. 1999. Beyond the Science-versus-Advocacy Distinction. Contemporary Sociology 28, 1, 23-6.
20. Gamson, William and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 1993. Movements and Media as Interacting Systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528, 1, 114-25.
21. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
22. Hansen, Anders. 1993. The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
23. Hellsten, Ina. 2002. The Politics of Metaphor. Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the Media. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
24. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2005. From Asilomar to Industrial Biotechnology: Risks, Reductionism and Regulation. Science as Culture 14, 4, 309-23.
27. Levidow, Les. 1999. Britain's Biotechnology Controversy: Elusive Science, Contested Expertise. New Genetics and Society 18, 1, 47-64.
28. Lewenstein, Bruce. 1992. The Meaning of "Public Understanding of Science" in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1, 1, 45-68.
29. Maeseele, Pieter and Dimitri Schuurman. 2008. Biotechnology and the Popular Press in Northern Belgium. A Case Study of Hegemonic Media Discourses and the Interpretive Struggle. Science Communication 29, 4, 435-71.
30. McCormick, Sabrina. 2007. Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation. Social Studies of Science 37, 4, 609-23.
31. Meyer, Gitte. 2006. Journalism and Science: How to Erode the Idea of Knowledge. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 3, 239-52.
32. Mormont, Marc and Christine Dasnoy. 1995. Source Strategies and the Mediatization of Climate Change. Media, Culture & Society 17, 1, 49-65.
33. Parajuli, Pramod. 1991. Power and Knowledge in Development Discourse: New Social Movements and the State in India. International Social Science Journal 43, 127, 173-90.
34. Purdue, Derrick. 2000. Anti-Genetix: The Emergence of the Anti-GM Movement. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
35. Roy, Alexis and Pierre-Benoit Joly. 2000. France: Broadening Precautionary Expertise? Journal of Risk Research 3, 3, 247-54.
36. Salleh, Anna. 2004. Journalism at Risk: Factors Influencing Journalistic Coverage of the GM Food and Crops Debate (Australia, 1999-2001) and Prospects for Critical Journalism. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, Australia.
37. Schenkelaars, Piet. 2005. Regulating GM Crops in the Netherlands: Precaution as Societal-Ethical Evaluation. Science and Public Policy 32, 4, 309-16.
38. Schurman, Rachel. 2004. Fighting "Frankenfoods": Industry Opportunities Structures and the Efficacy of the Anti-Biotech Movements in Western Europe. Social Problems 51, 2, 243-68.
39. Sinemus, Kristina. 2007. Talking with the Public - Challenging the Public Scare. Biotechnology Journal 2, 9, 1047.
40. Van Dijck, José. 1998. Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. New York: New York University Press.
41. Van Larebeke, N., C. Genetello, J. Schell et al. 1975. Acquisition of Tumour-Inducing Ability by Non-Oncogenic Agrobacteria as a Result of Plasmid Transfer. Nature 255, 742-3.
42. VIB. 2003. A Flemish Government Initiative.
43. VIB. 2008. Information Sought.
44. Vilt. 2007. Genmodificatie enige vorm van zuivere landbouw.
45. Vilt. 2008. Waar blijven ggo's van de tweede generatie?
46. Wagner, Wolfgang et al. 2006. The Monster in the Public Imagination. In G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (eds.), Genomics & Society: Legal, Ethical and Social Dimensions, 150-68. London: Earthscan.
47. Weingart, Peter. 2004. Science in a Political Environment. The Dynamics of Research, Risk Perception and Policy Making. EMBO Reports 5, S1, S52-S55.
48. Wervel. 2009. Wat doen we.
49. West, Darrel. 2007. Biotechnology Policy Across National Boundaries. The Science-Industrial Complex. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
50. Yearly, Steven. 2008. Environmental Action Groups and other NGOs as Communicators of Science. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 159-71. London: Routledge.