Deficits and dialogues: Science communication and the public understanding of science in the UK

Successful Science Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 17-30

  Lock, Simon J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010425305     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511760228.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. AEBC (2001). Crops on Trial: A Report by the AEBC, London: Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.
2. British Social Attitudes Survey (1996). Economic and Social Data Service (University of Essex). www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn¼3921 (accessed 6/6/2011).
3. Collins, H. and T. Pinch (1993). The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. COPUS (2001). A new direction for Copus. www.copus.org.uk/copus_councilpaper.htm (accessed November 2001).
5. COPUS (2002). Press release: Statement on Copus by the British Association, the Royal Institution and the Royal Society, 9 December 2002. London: The Royal Society.
6. Department of Trade and Industry (2003). GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London: DTI.
7. Durant, J. (1995). ‘A new agenda for the public understanding of science’: An inaugural lecture given by John Durant, Professor of Public Understanding of Science, 28 November 1995, Imperial College, London.
8. Durant, J., G. Evans and G. Thomas (1989). The public understanding of science, Nature, 340: 11-14.
9. Durant, J., Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (1998). Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. London: Science Museum Publications.
10. Evans, G. and J. Durant (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science, 4: 57-74.
11. Goodell, R. (1977). The Visible Scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
12. Gregory, J. and S. Miller (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New York: Plenum Press.
13. HM Treasury (2004). Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. London: HMSO.
14. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000). Science and Society. London: HMSO.
15. Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Jasanoff, S. (1997), Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996, Public Understanding of Science, 6: 221-232.
17. Lewenstein, B. V. (1992). The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II, Public Understanding of Science, 1: 45-68.
18. Lock, S. (2009). Lost in translations: discourses, boundaries and legitimacy in the public understanding of science in the UK. PhD thesis, University of London.
19. Mayer, S. (2003). Avoiding the difficult issues: a GeneWatch report on the Government’s response to the GM Nation? public debate. www.genewatch.org/sub-531175 (accessed February 2007).
20. Michael, M. (1992). Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self, Science, Technology and Human Values, 17: 313-333.
21. Nature (2004). Editorial: ‘Going public’, Nature, 431: 883.
22. NERC (2001). Programme on Science and Society: A NERC policy paper. www.nerc.ac.uk/insight/openness/scisocpolicy.asp (accessed October 2002).
23. Office of Science and Technology (1993). Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. London: HMSO.
24. Office of Science and Technology (1995). Report of the Committee to Review the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology. London: OST.
25. Public Debate Steering Board (2003). GM Nation? The Findings from the Public Debate Report by the Public Debate Steering Board. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
26. Rowe, G. et al. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops, Public Understanding of Science, 14: 331-352.
27. Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society (2004). Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
28. Royal Geographical Society (2002). Response to the BA Report to the Office of Science and Technology, Science and Society. www.rgs.org (accessed November 2002).
29. Royal Society (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
30. Royal Society (2001) Science in Society website. www.royalsoc.ac.uk/scienceinsociety (accessed September 2001).
31. Stilgoe, J. (2007). Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London: Demos.
32. Thomas, G. and J. Durant (1987), Why should we promote the public understanding of science?, Scientific Literacy Papers, Summer 1987, 1-14.
33. Wilsdon, J. and R. Willis (2004), See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
34. Wynne, B. (1990). ‘Knowledges in context’, paper presented at the conference Policies and Publics for Science and Technology, Science Museum, London, 7-11 April 1990.
35. Wynne, B. (1995), Public understanding of science, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361-388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Ziman, J. (1990). ‘Public understanding of science’, paper presented at the conference Policies and Publics for Science and Technology, Science Museum, London, 7-11 April 1990.
37. Gregory, J. and S. Miller (1998), Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility (New York: Plenum).
38. Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., et al. (eds.) (2008), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
39. Irwin, A. (2006), ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the “New” Scientific Governance’, Social Studies of Science, 36: 299–320.
40. Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
41. Wilsdon, J. and R. Willis (2004), See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (London: Demos).
42. 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.