Citizens in defence of something called science

Science as Culture

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 31-48

  Harvey, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 75149128162     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430601180862     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity, London:Sage.
2. Brown, N., 2004. “ Containing contradictions:debating nature, controversy and biotechnology ”. In Reconfiguring Nature:Issues and Debates in the New Genetics, Edited by:Glasner, P., Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited.
3. Collins, H., and Evans, R., 2002. The third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science, 32 (2):235–296.
4. Collins, H., and Evans, R., 2003. King Canute meets the Beach Boys. Social Studies of Science, 33 (3):435–452.
5. Darier, E., Shackley, S., and Wynne, B., 1999. Towards a ‘folk integrated assessment’ of climate change?. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 11 (3):351–372.
6. Davies, G., and Burgess, J., 2004. Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’:citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health and Place, 10:349–361.
7. Denzin, N., 1970. The Research Act in Sociology, London:Butterworth.
8. Enticott, G., 2003. Lay immunology, local foods and rural identity:defending unpasteurised milk in England. Sociologia Ruralis, 43 (3):257–270.
9. Epstein, S., 1995. The construction of lay expertise:AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20 (4):408–437.
10. Eriksson, L., 2004. “ From persona to person:the unfolding of an (un)scientific controversy ”. Cardiff University. PhD Thesis
11. ESRC. 1999. The Politics of GM Food:Risk, Science and Public Trust, Swindon:ESRC. Special briefing no. 5
12. Evans, R., 2005. Demarcation socialized:constructing boundaries and recognizing difference. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30 (1):3–16.
13. Ewen, S., and Pusztai, A., 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354:1353–1354.
14. Giddens, A., 1990. The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge:Polity.
15. Gilbert, N., and Mulkay, M., 1984. Opening Pandora's Box:A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
16. Gilland, T., Mayer, S., Durodie, B., Gibson, I., and Parr, D., 2002. Science:Can We Trust the Experts?, London:Hodder and Stoughton.
17. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wynne, B., and Mayer, S., 1997. Uncertain World:Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain, London:CSEC & Unilever.
18. Haerlin, B., and Parr, D., 1999. How to restore public trust in science. Nature, 400:499
19. Harvey, M., 2005. “ Citizens, experts and technoscience:a case study of ‘GM Nation’ the public debate ”. Cardiff University. PhD Thesis
20. Ho, M.-W., 1999. Genetic Engineering:Dream or Nightmare, Dublin:Gateway.
21. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2000. Science and Technology—Third Report, London:House of Lords.
22. Irwin, A., 1995. Citizen Science:A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London:Routledge.
23. Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Edited by:Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
24. Kent, J., 2003. Lay experts and the politics of breast implants. Public Understanding of Science, 12 (4):403–421.
25. Levidow, L., 2002. Ignorance-based risk assessment? Scientific controversy over GM food safety. Science as Culture, 11 (1):61–67.
26. Locke, S., 2001. Sociology and the public understanding of science:from rationalization to rhetoric. British Journal of Sociology, 52 (1):1–18.
27. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., Weldon, S., 2001. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (PABE), Final Report to the European Commission FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI). Available at:www.pabe.net
28. Mellor, F., 2003. Between fact and fiction:demarcating science and non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4):509–538.
29. Michael, M., 1991. Discourses of danger and dangerous discourses:patrolling the borders of science, nature and society. Discourse and Society, 2 (1):5–28.
30. Michael, M., 1992. Lay discourses of science:science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 17 (3):313–333.
31. Mulkay, M., 1997. Book review of:Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 22 (2):254–264.
32. Nelkin, D., 1996. “ The science wars:responses to a marriage failed ”. In Science Wars, Edited by:Ross, A., 114–122. London:Duke University Press.
33. OST/Wellcome. 2000. Science and the Public:A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain, London:The Wellcome Trust. A Joint Report by the Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust
34. Quist, D., and Chapela, I., 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414:541–542.
35. Robins, R., 2001. Overburdening risk:policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Public Understanding of Science, 10:19–36.
36. Roth, A., Dunsby, J., and Bero, L., 2003. Framing processes in public commentary on US federal tobacco control regulation. Social Studies of Science, 33 (1):7–44.
37. Royal Society. 2004. Science in Society, London:Royal Society.
38. Shaw, A., 2002. ‘It just goes against the grain.’ Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11:273–291.
39. Steering Board. 2003. GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate, London:Department of Trade and Industry.
40. Stern, M., 2004. Jurassic Park and the moveable feast of science. Science as Culture, 13 (3):347–372.
41. Warwick, H., and Meziani, G., 2002. Seeds of Doubt:North American Farmers' Experiences of GM Crops, Bristol:Soil Association.
42. Wilsdon, J., and Willis, R., 2004. See-through Science:Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London:Demos.
43. Winner, L., 1999/1980. “ Do artifacts have politics? ”. In The Social Shaping of Technology, Edited by:Mackenzie, D., and Wajcman, J., 28–40. Buckingham:Open University Press.
44. Wittgenstein, L., 2001/1953. Philosophical Investigations, Oxford:Blackwell.
45. Woolgar, S., 1988. Science:The Very Idea, Chichester:Ellis Horwood.
46. Wynne, B., 1982. Rationality and Ritual:The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain, Chalfont St Giles:The British Society for the History of Science.
47. Wynne, B., 1996. “ May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide ”. In Risk, Environment and Modernity:Toward a New Ecology, Edited by:Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B., 44–83. London:Sage.
48. Wynne, B., 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism. Social Studies of Science, 33 (3):401–417.
49. Wynne, B., 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Community Genetics, 9:211–220.
50. Yearley, S., 1992. Green ambivalence about science:legal–rational authority and the scientific legitimation of a social movement. British Journal of Sociology, 43 (4):511–532.
51. Yearley, S., 1995. “ The environmental challenge to science studies ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, J., Peterson, J., and Pinch, T., 457–469. London:Sage.