Contexts constrain science in the public: How the sociobiology debate was (not) presented in the German press

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 740-758

  Linke, Sebastian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

evolutionary psychology; Germany; media and science; science and popular culture; socio biology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864060058     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510394250     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Allen E, et al.Against sociobiology.New York Times Review of Books. 1975;82:184-6.
2. Bauer MWBetween Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology. Dierkes MGrote Cv, ed. Amsterdam: Harwood; 2000:157-78.
3. Bauer MW,Durant J,Ragnarsdottir A,Rudolfsdottir AScience and Technology in the British Press: Research Report: 1946-1990. London: Science Museum; 1995:.
4. Bauer MW,Petkova K,Boyadjieva P,Gornev G.Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the 'Iron Curtain': 1946-1995.Social Studies of Science. 2006;36 (1): 99-131.
5. Commentaries on Rose, 'Précis of lifelines: Biology, freedom, determinism'.Behavioural & Brain Sciences. 1999;22:885-921.
6. Crossing Borders. Grenzüberschreitungen. Ethical, legal, economic and religious views on stem cell research: Global perspectives. Bender WHauskeller CManzei A, ed. Münster: Agenda Verlag; 2005:.
7. Benford G.Im Namen der Klone: Wir sind doch keine Ungeheuer (Speaking for clones, we are no monsters).Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2001;:.
8. Bereczkei T.An intellectual legacy of the past: The reception of sociobiology in the East-European countries.Biology and Philosophy. 1993;8:399-407.
9. Bischof NGescheiter als alle die Laffen: Ein Psychogramm von Konrad Lorenz. Hamburg: Rasch & Röhring; 1991:.
10. Blech J.Dämonen der Begierde.Der Spiegel. 2000.
11. Blöbaum B,Görke A,Wied KQuellen der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung: Inhaltsanalyse und Befragung. Münster: Universität Münster, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft; 2004:.
12. Braun T,Glänzel W,Schubert A.National publication patterns and citation impact in the multidisciplinary journals Science and Nature.Scientometrics. 1989;17:11-14.
13. Brigandt I.The instinct concept of the early Konrad Lorenz'.Journal of the History of Biology. 2005;38:571-60.
14. Brown AThe Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Become Selfish Gods. London: Simon & Schuster; 1999:.
15. Bucchi M.When scientists turn to the public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication.Public Understanding of Science. 1996;5:375-97.
16. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Bucchi MTrench B, ed. London: Routledge; 2008:.
17. Burkhardt RWPatterns of Behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the Founding of Ethology. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2005:.
18. Cassidy A.Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: An unusual case of science in the media?.Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14:115-41.
19. Cassidy AHistory of Psychology. politics of evolution: Popular controversy in the late 20th-century United Kingdom; 2007:199-226.
20. Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Cheng DClaessens M.Gascoigne TMetcalfe JSchiele BShi S, ed. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer; 2008:.
21. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. Durant JBauer MGaskell G, ed. London: Science Museum; 1998:.
22. Euler H,Voland EEvolutionary Approaches in the Behavioral Sciences: Towards a Better Understanding of Human Nature. Peterson SASomit A, ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2001:277-86.
23. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Felt UWynne B, ed. Brussels: European Commission; 2007:.
24. Flad-Schnorrenberg B.Der Mensch in der Froschperspektive. (Man from a frog perspective).Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 1978;:.
25. Föger B,Taschwer KDie andere Seite des Spiegels: Konrad Lorenz und der Nationalsozialismus. Vienna: Czernin Verlag; 2001:.
26. Franzen MDas Medium der Wissenschaftszeitschrift seit dem 19. Jahrhundert. Stöckel SLisner WRüve G, ed. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag; 2009:.
27. Franzen MDie Medialität wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften. Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos; in press.
28. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell GBauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum; 2001:.
29. Gutteling JM,Olofsson A,Fjaestad B,Kohring M,Goerke A,Bauer M,Rusanen TBiotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Bauer MWGaskell G, ed. Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press/Science Museum; 2002:.
30. Hampel J,Pfenning U,Kohring M,Görke A,Ruhrmann GBiotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. Gaskell GBauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum; 2001:191-203.
31. Hemminger HJDer Mensch: Marionette der Evolution? Eine Kritik an der Soziobiologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag; 1983:.
32. Jianhui L,Fan H.Science as ideology: The rejection and reception of sociobiology in China.Journal of the History of Biology. 2003;36:567-78.
33. Kalikow TJ.Konrad Lorenz's ethological theory: Explanations and ideology 1938-1943.Journal of the History of Biology. 1983;16 (1): 39-73.
34. Kiernan V.Diffusion of news about research.Science Communication. 2003;25 (1): 3-13.
35. Knapp ASoziobiologie und Moraltheorie: Kritik der ethischen Folgerungen moderner Biologie. Weinheim: Acta Humaniora; 1989:.
36. Kohring MWissenschaftsjournalismus: Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: UVK; 2005:.
37. Kohring M,Görke A,Ruhrmann GGentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Theorie. Hampel JRenn O, ed. Frankfurt Main: Campus; 1999:292-316.
38. LaFolette MMaking Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990:.
39. Linke SDarwins Erben in den Medien: Eine wissenschafts- und mediensoziologische Fallstudie zur Renaissance der Soziobiologie. Bielefeld: Transcript; 2007:.
40. Linke S,Cassidy A.Human nature in the media: Sociobiology and related fields between scientific and media discussions. Paper presented at the EASST conference; 2006Lausanne, Switzerland; 2006.
41. Lorenz K.Durch Domestikation verursachte Störungen arteigenen Verhaltens.Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie und Charakterkunde. 1940;59 (1&2): 2-81.
42. Marks LA.,Kalaitzandonakes N,Wilkins L,Zakharova L.Mass media framing of biotechnology news.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:183-203.
43. Metzger SDie List der Gene. Strategeme eines neuen Menschen. Kleeberg BMetzger SRapp WWalter T, ed. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag; 2001:73-113.
44. Mysterud I.One name for the evolutionary baby? A preliminary guide for everyone confused by the chaos of names.Social Science Information. 2004;43:95-114.
45. Nelkin DSelling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman & Company; 1995:.
46. Pahl C.Die Bedeutung von Wissenschaftsjournalen für die Themenauswahl in den Wissenschaftsressorts deutscher Zeitungen am Beispiel medizinischer Themen.Rundfunk und Fernsehen. 1998;46:243-53.
47. Pellechia MG.Trends in Science Coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers.Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6:49-68.
48. Pinker SThe Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books; 2002:.
49. Der neue Naturalismus: eine Herausforderung an das christliche Menschenbild. Quitterer JRunggaldier E, ed. Köln: Kohlhammer; 1999:.
50. Rensberger B.Sociobiology: Updating Darwin on behavior.New York Times. 1975;1:52.
51. Rose S.Précis of lifelines: Biology, freedom, determinism.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999;22:871-85.
52. Rose SLifelines: Life beyond the Gene. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:.
53. Sahlins MDThe Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1976:.
54. Sakura O.Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan.Biology and Philosophy. 1998;13:341-57.
55. Die Darwin AG. Wie Nanotechnologie, Biotechnologie und Computer den neuen Menschen träumen. Schirrmacher F, ed. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch; 2001:.
56. Segerstråle UDefenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:.
57. SetäläVVäliverronenE (2010) Public perception of evolution and the rise of evolutionary psychology in Finland. Public Understanding of Science(online first). Available at: pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/24/0963662509358502.
58. Sociobiology: Another biological determinism.Bioscience. 1976;26 (3): 182-86.
59. Sperling S.Converting ethics into reason: German stem cell policy between science and the law.Science as Culture. 2008;17 (4): 363-75.
60. Taschwer K,Föger BKonrad Lorenz. Biographie. Vienna: Zsolnay; 2003:.
61. Voss MGesunde Gene. Die mediale Diskussion um die Gentherapie. Bielefeld: Transcript; 2010:.
62. Wade N.Sociobiology: Troubled birth for a new discipline.Science. 1976;191:1151-55.
63. Weingart PHuman By Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences. Weingart PMitchel SDRicherson PJMaasen S, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997:vii-x.
64. Weingart PStunde der Wahrheit?. Weilerswist: Velbrück; 2001:.
65. Weingart P,Salzmann C,Wörmann S.The social embedding of biomedicine: An analysis of German media debates 1995-2004.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:381-96.
66. Wilson EOSociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; 1975a:.
67. Wilson EO.For sociobiology.New York Times Review of Books. 1975b;:60-61.
68. Wilson EO.Academic vigilantism.Bioscience. 1976;26 (3): 183-90.
69. Wilson EOOn Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978:.
70. Wormer HDie Wissensmacher. Profile und Arbeitsfelder von Wissenschaftsredaktionen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag; 2006:.
71. Wright R.Time's 25 most influential Americans.Time Magazine. 1996;:147.