Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):295-313 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper spells out and discusses four assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking. The assumptions are: First, the public is ignorant of science. Second, the public has negative attitudes towards (specific instances of) science and technology. Third, ignorance is at the root of these negative attitudes. Fourth, the public’s knowledge deficit can be remedied by one-way science communication from scientists to citizens. It is argued that there is nothing wrong with ignorance-based explanations per se. Ignorance accounts at least partially for many cases of opposition to specific instances of science and technology. Furthermore, more attention needs to be paid to the issue of relevance. In regard to the evaluation of a scientific experiment, a technology, or a product, the question is not only who knows best?, but also what knowledge is relevant and to what extent?. Examples are drawn primarily from the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture.|
|Keywords||Deficit model Ignorance Attitudes Science communication Genetic engineering Nanotechnology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christian J. Peters (2000). Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Who Stands to Benefit? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):313-327.
Jeffrey Friedman (2005). Popper, Weber, and Hayek: The Epistemology and Politics of Ignorance. Critical Review 17 (1-2):1-58.
Stuart Firestein (2012). Ignorance: How It Drives Science. Oxford University Press.
Carol L. Rogers (2000). Making the Audience a Key Participant in the Science Communication Process. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):553-557.
Tuija Takala & Matti Häyry (2000). Genetic Ignorance, Moral Obligations and Social Duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (1):107 – 113.
Peter Janich & Michael Weingarten (2002). Verantwortung Ohne Verständnis? Wie Die Ethikdebatte Zur Gentechnik Von Deren Wissenschaftstheorie Abhängt. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (1):85-120.
Maja Horst (2011). Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):801-815.
Robert Fiengo (2007). Asking Questions: Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Ignorance. Oxford ;University Press.
Andrew Sneddon (2005). Rawlsian Decisionmaking and Genetic Engineering. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (01):35-41.
Bonnie Spanier (2000). Transforming Science Curricula in Higher Education: Feminist Contributions. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):467-480.
Robert B. Talisse (2004). Does Public Ignorance Defeat Deliberative Democracy? Critical Review 16 (4):455-463.
Rik Peels (2010). What is Ignorance? Philosophia 38 (1):57-67.
Added to index2011-04-18
Total downloads22 ( #62,772 of 739,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?