|Abstract||Debates about new technologies, such as crop and food genetic modification (GM), raise pressing questions about the ways ‘experts’ and ‘ nonexperts’ communicate. These debates are dynamic, characterized by many voices contesting numerous storylines. The discoursal features, including language choices and communication strategies, of the GM debate are in some ways taken for granted and in others actively manipulated by participants. Although there are many voices, some have more influence than others. This study makes use of 50 hours of in-depth interviews with GM scientists, nonexperts, and other stakeholders in the GM debate to examine this phenomenon. We uncover rhetorical devices used by scientists to characterize and ultimately undermine participation by non-experts in areas including rationality, knowledge, understanding and objectivity. Scientists engage with ‘the public’ from their own linguistic and social domain, without reflexive confirmation of their own status as part of the public and the citizenry. This raises a number of interesting ironies and contradictions, which are explored in the article. As such, it provides valuable insights into an increasingly important type of discourse|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Guy Cook, Peter T. Robbins & Elisa Pieri, Words of Mass Destruction: British Newpaper Coverage of the Genetically Modified Food Debate, Expert and Non-Expert Reactions.
John Ziman (2000). Are Debatable Scientific Questions Debatable? Social Epistemology 14 (2 & 3):187 – 199.
Anna Folker, Lotte Holm & Peter Sandøe (2009). 'We Have to Go Where the Money Is'—Dilemmas in the Role of Nutrition Scientists: An Interview Study. Minerva 47 (2):217-236.
Corinna Jung (2009). Towards More Confidence: About the Roles of Social Scientists in Participatory Policy Making. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):125-129.
Geert Munnichs (2004). Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Raymond Anthony (2012). Taming the Unruly Side of Ethics: Overcoming Challenges of a Bottom-Up Approach to Ethics in the Areas of Food Policy and Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):813-841.
Michiel Korthals (2003). Do We Need Berlin Walls or Chinese Walls Between Research, Public Consultation, and Advice? New Public Responsibilities for Life Scientists. Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (4):385-395.
Udo Schuklenk (2004). Professional Responsibilities of Biomedical Scientists in Public Discourse. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (1):53-60.
Calvin L. Troup (2009). Ordinary People Can Reason: A Rhetorical Case for Including Vernacular Voices in Ethical Public Relations Practice. Journal of Business Ethics 87 (4):441 - 453.
Barbara Nicholas (1999). Molecular Geneticists and Moral Responsibility: “Maybe If We Were Working on the Atom Bomb I Would Have a Different Argument”. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):515-530.
Michael Dummett (forthcoming). Ought Research to Be Unrestricted? Grazer Philosophische Studien:281-298.
Alan Petersen & Alison Anderson (2007). A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists' and Science Policymakers' Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies. NanoEthics 1 (3).
Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4).
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín (2006). Genetic Testing: The Appropriate Means for a Desired Goal? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (3).
Kevin C. Elliott (2006). An Ethics of Expertise Based on Informed Consent. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4).
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads2 ( #232,382 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?