Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture [Book Review]

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)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9311-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 33,245
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics.Onora O'Neill - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is".John R. Searle - 1964 - Philosophical Review 73 (1):43-58.
The Naturalistic Fallacy.W. K. Frankena - 1939 - Mind 48 (192):464-477.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Who Stands to Benefit? [REVIEW]Christian J. Peters - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):313-327.
Ignorance: How It Drives Science.Stuart Firestein - 2012 - Oxford University Press.
Genetic Ignorance, Moral Obligations and Social Duties.Tuija Takala & Matti Häyry - 2000 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (1):107 – 113.
Verantwortung Ohne Verständnis? Wie Die Ethikdebatte Zur Gentechnik Von Deren Wissenschaftstheorie Abhängt.Peter Janich & Michael Weingarten - 2002 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 33 (1):85-120.
Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication.Maja Horst - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):801-815.
Rawlsian Decisionmaking and Genetic Engineering.Andrew Sneddon - 2006 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (1):35-41.
What is Ignorance?Rik Peels - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (1):57-67.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-04-18

Total downloads
53 ( #114,443 of 2,242,795 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #410,510 of 2,242,795 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature