|Abstract||Within academic circles, the “deficit” model of public understanding of science has been subject to increasing critical scrutiny by those who favor more constructivist approaches. These suggest that “the public” can articulate sophisticated ideas about the social and ethical implications of science regardless of their level of technical knowledge. The seminal studies following constructivist approaches have generally involved small-scale qualitative investigations, which have minimized the pre-framing of issues to a greater or lesser extent. This article describes the Gene Week Project, sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, which attempted to extend this work to a large-scale consultation on genetics and health through the medium of a local daily newspaper. Readers were invited to respond to a set of open-ended questions that accompanied stimulus material published each day for five consecutive weekdays. The articles were written with the intention of extending the limited range of discourses around genetics and biotechnology that are usually presented by the popular media (hope, fear, tragedy and bravery). Responses raised overarching issues about the place of emerging health technologies in society reminiscent of previous open-ended consultations in this field. The paper ends with a critical discussion about the potential of this method to contribute to the further development of open-ended public consultations|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Mairi Levitt (2003). Public Consultation in Bioethics. What's the Point of Asking the Public When They Have Neither Scientific nor Ethical Expertise? Health Care Analysis 11 (1):15-25.
Jordan Bartol (forthcoming). Re-Examining the Gene in Personalized Genomics. Science and Education.
Stephen Buetow (2003). The Ethics of Public Consultation in Health Care: An Orthodox Jewish Perspective. Health Care Analysis 11 (2):151-160.
B. Godard, J. Marshall, C. Laberge & B. M. Knoppers (2004). Strategies for Consulting with the Community: The Cases of Four Large-Scale Genetic Databases. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):457-477.
John E. J. Rasko, Gabrielle O'Sullivan & Rachel A. Ankeny (eds.) (2006). The Ethics of Inheritable Genetic Modification: A Dividing Line? Cambridge University Press.
Ruth Chadwick, Henk ten Have, Rogeer Hoedemaekers, Jrgen Husted, Mairi Levitt, Tony McGleenan, Darren Shickle & Urban Wiesing (2001). Euroscreen 2: Towards Community Policy on Insurance, Commercialization and Public Awareness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (3):263 – 272.
Jonny Anomaly (2011). Public Health and Public Goods. Public Health Ethics 4 (3):251-259.
Michael J. Flower (1981). Taking DNA to Market and Regulatory Default. Bioethics Quarterly 3 (2):112-127.
Lisa M. Lee (2012). Public Health Ethics Theory: Review and Path to Convergence. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (1):85-98.
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.
Michael Parker (2013). The Ethics of Open Access Publishing. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):16.
Rick D. Hogan, Wendy E. Parmet & Gene W. Matthews (2007). The Public Health Law Year in Review: Sponsored by the Public Health Law Association. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35:17-22.
Peta Cook (2011). What Constitutes Adequate Public Consultation? Xenotransplantation Proceeds in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):67-70.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads1 ( #274,830 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?