Environmental action groups and other NGOs as communicators of science

Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 159-171

  Yearley, Steven ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905582992     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203928240-17     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O’Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement, London: Routledge.
2. McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2000) ‘Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims’, Social Problems, 47: 499-522.
3. Mol, A. P. J. (2006) ‘Environmental governance in the Information Age: the emergence of informational governance’, Environment and Planning, C24: 497-514.
4. Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove-White, R. and Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk and democracy in world trade law’, Yale Journal of InternationalLaw, 30: 81-123.
5. Yang, G. (2005) ‘Environmental NGOs and institutional dynamics in China’, China Quarterly, 181: 46-66.
6. Bodansky, D. (1994) ‘Prologue to the Climate Change Convention, ' in Mintzer, I. M. and Leonard, J. A. (eds), Negotiating Climate Change: The Inside Story of the Rio Convention, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 45-74.
7. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994) ‘Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice, Part 2', Global Environmental Change, 4: 185-200.
8. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (2003) ‘Science, equity, and the war against carbon’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 28: 69-92.
9. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. and Kellow, A. J. (2002) International Environmental Policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
10. Busch, L., Grove-White, R., Jasanoff, S., Winickoff, D. and Wynne, B. (2004) Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization.
11. Crichton, M. (2004) State of Fear, London: HarperCollins.
12. Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S. H. (2001) ‘Self-governance and peer review in science-forpolicy:the case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report’, in Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 219-46.
13. FoE (1992) Twenty-One Years of Friends of the Earth, London: Friends of the Earth.
14. Freudenburg, W. R. (2000) ‘Social constructions and social constrictions: toward analyzing the social construction of “the naturalized” as well as “the natural”, ' in Spaargaren, G., Mol, A. P. J. and Buttel, F. H. (eds), Environment and Global Modernity, London: Sage, 103-119.
15. Greenpeace UK (2003) Human Impacts of Man-made Chemicals, London: Greenpeace.
16. Hansen, J. (2005) ‘Framing the public: three case studies in public participation in the governance of agricultural biotechnology’, PhD thesis, Florence: European University Institute.
17. Hart, D. M. and Victor, D. G. (1993) ‘Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research’, Social Studies of Science, 23: 643-80.
18. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O’Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement, London: Routledge.
19. Jasanoff, Sheila (2005) Designs on Nature, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C. C. and Gardner, M. T. (eds) (2003) Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Lahsen, M. (2005) ‘Technocracy, democracy and US climate politics: the need for demarcations’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 30: 137-69.
22. McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2000) ‘Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims’, Social Problems, 47: 499-522.
23. McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2003) ‘Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy’, Social Problems, 50: 348-73.
24. Mol, A. P. J. (2006) ‘Environmental governance in the Information Age: the emergence of informational governance’, Environment and Planning, C24: 497-514.
25. Pearce, F. (1991) Green Warriors: The People and the Politics Behind the Environmental Revolution, London: Bodley Head.
26. Priest, S. H. (2001) A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology, Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield.
27. Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. (1999) Re-thinking Risk: A Pilot Multi-Criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK, Brighton: Science Policy Research Unit.
28. Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove-White, R. and Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk and democracy in world trade law’, Yale Journal of International Law, 30: 81-123.
29. Yang, G. (2003) ‘The co-evolution of the Internet and civil society in China’, Asian Survey1, 43:405-22.
30. Yang, G. (2005) ‘Environmental NGOs and institutional dynamics in China’, China Quarterly1, 181:46-66.
31. Yearley, S. (1993) ‘Standing in for nature: the practicalities of environmental organisations’ use of science’, in Milton, K. (ed.) Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, London: Routledge, 59-72.
32. Yearley, S. (1999) ‘Computer models and the public’s understanding of science: a case-study analysis’, Social Studies of Science, 29: 845-66.
33. Yearley, S. (2005a) Cultures of Environmentalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Yearley, S. (2005b) Making Sense of Science: Science Studies and Social Theory, London: Sage.