Boundary work, associative argumentation and switching in the advocacy of agricultural biotechnology

Science as Culture

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 49-70

  Burchell, Kevin ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052737247     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430601180896     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. BBC. 2004. “ Government ‘to back GM crops’ ”. In BBC Website 17 February. Available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3501669.stm
2. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity, London:Sage.
3. Brown, N., and Michael, M., 2001. Switching between science and culture in transpecies transplantation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26 (1):3–22.
4. Burchell, K., 2005. “ Talking to scientists:the role of scientific knowledge in environmental policy-making—a case study in biotechnology and genetics ”. University of London. PhD Thesis, London School of Economics
5. Burchell, K., 2007. Empiricist selves and contingent‘others’:the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2), pp. 145–162)
6. Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs. 2007. “ Science homepage ”. Available at:http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/default.htm
7. Demos (Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R.). 2004. See-through Science:Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London:Demos.
8. Demos (Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J.). 2005. The Public Value of Science:Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters, London:Demos.
9. Duster, T., 2003. Backdoor to Eugenics, 2nd edn, London:Routledge.
10. Econexus. 2003. “ The Five Year Freeze, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch UK, Greenpeace ”. In Comments on the GM Science Review, The Soil Association and Antoniou, M. Available at:http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/comment/pdf/0054.pdf
11. Food Ethics Council. 2001. After FMD:Aiming for a Values-driven Agriculture Report 4. Available at:http://foodethicscouncil.org/node/50
12. Gaskell, G., 2004) Science policy and society:the British debate over GM agriculture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15 (3):241–245.
13. GeneWatch UK. 2000. Privatising Knowledge, Patenting Genes:The Race to Control Genetic Information Briefing 11. Available at:http://www.genewatch.org/Publications/Briefs/brief11.pdf
14. Gieryn, T., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science:strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Journal, 48 (6):781–795.
15. Gieryn, T., 1995. “ Boundaries of science ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T., 393–443. London:Sage. ch. 18
16. Gilbert, N., and Mulkay, M., 1984. Opening Pandora's Box:A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
17. 2003. GM Science Review. GM Science Review:First Report—An Open Review of the Science Relevant to GM Crops and Food Based on the Interests and Concerns of the Public, Available at:http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#first
18. 2004. GM Science Review. GM Science Review:Second Report—An Open Review of the Science Relevant to GM Crops and Food Based on the Interests and Concerns of the Public, Available at:http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#second
19. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., and Wynne, B., 1997. Uncertain World:Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain, (Lancaster University.
20. Guston, D., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science:an introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26 (4):399–408.
21. Lassen, J., and Jamison, A., 2006. Genetic technologies meet the public:the discourses of concern. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31 (1):8–28.
22. Latour, B., 1983. “ Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world ”. In Science Observed:Perspectives on the Study of Science, Edited by:Knorr Cetina, K., and Mulkay, M., 141–170. London:Sage. ch. 6
23. Levidow, L., Murphy, J., and Carr, S., 2007. Recasting ‘substantial equivalence’:transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32 (1), pp. 26–64)
24. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., and Weldon, S., 2001. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe:Final Report of the PABE Research Project funded by the European Commission. Available at:http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs/summary.doc
25. Mayer, S., 2000. “ Genetic engineering in agriculture ”. In Science and Environmental Decision Making, Edited by:Huxham, M., and Sumner, D., 94–117. Harlow:Prentice Hall. ch. 4
26. Mayer, S., and Stirling, A., 2004. GM crops:good or bad?. EMBO Report, 5 (11):1021–1024.
27. Myerson, G., and Rydin, Y., 1996. The Language of Environment:A New Rhetoric, London:UCL Press.
28. Office of Science and Innovation. 2007a. Science in Government, Available at:http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-in-govt/page8314.html
29. Office of Science and Innovation. 2007b. Public Dialogue on Science & Technology, Available at:http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-and-society/public_engagement/public_dialogue/page12695.html
30. 2002. Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. Farming and Food:A Sustainable Future, Available at:http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/farming/index/CommissionReport.htm
31. Potter, J., and Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology:Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour, London:Sage Publications.
32. Reardon, J., 2001. The human genome diversity project:a case study in coproduction. Social Studies of Science, 31 (3):357–388.
33. Torgesen, H., and 19 others. 2002. “ Problems, promise and proxies:twenty five years of debate and regulation in Europe ”. In Biotechnology:The Making of a Global Controversy, Edited by:Bauerand, M., and Gaskell, G., 21–94. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ch. 2
34. Wainwright, S., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., and Cribbs, A., 2006. From bench to bedside? Biomedical scientists' expectations of stem cell science as a future therapy for diabetes. Social Science and Medicine, 63:2052–2064.
35. Wainwright, S., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., and Cribbs, A., in press. Remaking the body? Scientists' genetic discourses and practices as examples of changing expectations on embryonic stem cell therapy for diabetes. New Genetics and Society
36. Wynne, B., 1989. “ Frameworks of rationality in risk management:towards the testing of a naïve sociology ”. In Environmental Threats, Edited by:Brown, J., 33–45. London:Belhaven.
37. Wynne, B., 1996. “ May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide ”. In Risk, Environment and Modernity:Towards a New Ecology, Edited by:Lash, J., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B., 44–83. London:Sage Publications. ch. 2