Getting adolescents to inform themselves about ecogenomics: A Dutch case study

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  Bos, Mark J W ^a   Kloet, Roy R ^a   Koolstra, Cees M ^a   Willems, Jaap T J M ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951935434     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.08030202     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. M.C. Brandi, L. Cerbara, M. Misiti and A. Valente (2005), Youth and science in Italy: between enthusiasm and indifference, JCOM 4(2). Retrieved at March 20; available at
2. K.H. Nielsen (2005), Between understanding and appreciation: current science communication in Denmark, JCOM 4(4). Retrieved March 20; available at
3. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2009); Retrieved March 20; available at
4. European Commission, Eurobarometer Unit (2007), Europeans, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 224,. Rerieved March 20; available at
5. M.L. Nucci and R. Kubey (2007), 'We begin tonight with fruits and vegetables,' genetically modified food on the evening news 1980-2003, Science Communication, 29(2): 147-176.
6. R. Shineha, A. Hibino and K. Kato (2008), Analysis of Japanese newspaper articles on genetic modification, JCOM 7(2). Retrieved March 23; available at .
7. A. van der Auweraert, Dimensions of science communication, PCST-8 Conference, Barcelona, 3-6 June, 2004. Retrieved March 28; available at pp. 7-10.
8. T.W. Burns, D.J. O'Connor and S.M. Stocklmayer (2003), Science communication: a contemporary definition, Public Understanding of Science, 12(2): 183-202.
9. J. Willems and B. Regeer (2007), Publieken voor wtc: het grote publiek, deelpublieken en het publiek als expert [publics for science and technique communication: the general public, target audiences, and the public as expert], in J. Willems (red.), Basisboek wetenschapscommunicatie [Handbook science communication] pp. 209-221, The Hague: Boom Onderwijs.
10. E. Einsiedel (2000), Understanding 'publics' in the public understanding of science, in: M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (red.), Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology, pp. 205-216, Amsterdam: Hardwood Academic Publishers.
11. J.D. Miller (2004), Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know, Public Understanding of Science 13(3): 273-294.
12. D.V. Shah, J.M. McLeod and S.-H. Yoon (2001), Communication, context, and community: an exploration of print, broadcast and Internet influences, Communication Research, 28(4): 464-506.
13. P.F. Byrne, D.M. Namuth, J. Harrington, S.M. Ward, D.J. Lee, and P. Hain (2002), Increasing public understanding of transgenic crops through the World Wide Web, Public Understanding of Science, 11(3): 293-304.
14. J. Macoubrie (2006), Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government, Public Understanding of Science 15(2): 221-241.
15. J. Matsuura (2004), Expecting the public backlash: public relations lessons for nanotechnology from the biotechnology experience, in: Technical proceedings of the 2004 NSTI nanotechnology conference and trade show, 3. Retrieved March 28, 2009; available at
16. M. Bucchi and F. Neresini (2006), Biotech remains unloved by the more informed: the media may be providing the message - but is anyone heeding the call?, Nature 416: 261, Retrieved March 20; available at
17. Brandi et al. 2005; see 1.
18. Y. Castelfranchi (2003), For a paleontology of the scientific imagery, JCOM 2(3).
19. As referred to by: D. Gouthier (2007), Teachers' perception of the European scientis, JCOM 6(3). Retrieved March 20, 2009; available at
20. C.-J. Lee, D.A. Scheufele, and B.V. Lewenstein (2005), Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology, Science Communication, 27(2): 240-267.
21. D.A. Scheufele and B.V. Lewenstein (2005), The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659-667.
22. S. Murreillo, D. Contier and M. Knobel (2006), Challenges of an exhibit on nanoscience and nanotechnology, JCOM 5(4). Retrieved March 20; available at
23. Lee et al. 2005; see 19
24. M.D. Cobb (2005), Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology, Science Communication 27(2): p. 221-239.
25. M.C.Brandi et al. 2005; see 1.
26. M.J.W Bos, C.M. Koolstra and J.T.J.M Willems (2009), Adolescents' responses toward a new technology: first associations, information seeking and affective responses to ecogenomics, Public Understanding of Science, 18(2).
27. European Commission, 2007; see 4
28. Ecogenomics Consortium, Assessing the living soil: an ecogenomics approach to explore and unlock sustainable life-support functions of soils, Retrieved March 20, 2009; available at
29. A. Roelofsen, J. E. W. Broerse, Tj. de Cock Bunning and J. F. G. Bunders (2008), Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(3): 334-355.
30. B.J. Dodge (1995), Some thoughts about WebQuests, The Distance Educator, 1(2). Retrieved March 20; available at
31. S.K. MacGregor and Y. Lou (2004), Web-based learning: how task scaffolding and web site design support knowledge acquisition, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37(2): 161-175.
32. Ecogenomics Consortium; see 27
33. D.A. Scheufele and B.V. Lewenstein (2005), The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659-667.
34. B.V. Lewenstein (2005), Introduction - Nanotechnology and the public, Science Communication 27(2): 169-174.
35. P. Slovic, M.L. Finucane, E. Peters and D.G. MacGregor (2004), Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality, Risk Analysis 24(2): 311-322.
36. Meer vertrouwen in media dan in politiek [More trust in media than in politics], Trouw, p. 2, February 3, 2005.
37. Princeton Survey Research Associates (2005), Leap of Faith: using the internet despite the dangers. Results of a national survey of internet users for Consumer Reports WebWatch. Retrieved March 20, 2009; available at
38. Eurobarometer (2001), Europeans, science and technology. Eurobarometer 55.2, Directorate-General for Press and communication, Public Opinion Sector.
39. Brandi et al. 2005; see 1.
40. Murriello et al. 2006; see 1.
41. European Commission, 2007; see 4