Suchergebnisse

As health care applications derived from human genetics research are likely to move increasingly from 'clinic to community', there is growing interest not just in how patients understand and take up health-related genetic information but also in the views of the wider population, as well as a range of professional groups. In this paper, issues relating public knowledge and public trust are raised and discussed in an attempt to move forward debates about public involvement in genomic research and the role of sociologists within interdisciplinary teams. As the field of public understanding of science has developed, we have seen a shift from a focus on the lack of scientific literacy as problem to a recognition of the range of different knowledges that people have and use as they confront science and technology in their everyday lives. As a mood for dialogue pervades many institutions in their relations with 'publics', attention must now be paid to the way in which knowledge and expertise is expressed, heard and acted upon in dialogic encounters. There is increasing concern about public trust in science and calls to increase public confidence, particularly through more open engagement with a range of publics. However, lack of trust or loss of confidence may be constructed as problems rather than reflecting empirical reality, where more complex relationships and attitudes prevail. Lack of trust is often privatized, deeply rooted in lived experience and routinely managed. Trust relations are generally characterized by ambivalence, uncertainty and risk, and are always provisional. Drawing on selected literature and empirical research to review and illustrate this field, this paper argues that scepticism or ambivalence on the part of publics are not necessarily problems to be overcome in the interest of scientific progress, but rather should be mobilized to enhance open and public debates about the nature and direction of genomics research, medicine, and the related social and ethical issues. Just as there can be no resolute expression of public knowledge or public opinion, it is unlikely that there is a resolute expression of public trust in genomics. However, ambivalence and scepticism can be harnessed as powerful resource for change, whether through the mobilization of public knowledges or the development of greater reflexivity within scientific institutions. This demands a sharing of power and greater public involvement in the early stages of policy formation and scientific and medical agenda setting.

Public journalism is challenging the more traditional notions of mainstream journalism. It represents an attempt to connect journalists with the communities within which they operate. It places citizen input at the center of journalistic concerns. In this essay, we examine the origin and development of public journalism. We note a few of the similarities in this movement to the early muckrakers operating at the turn of the century. We then consider the state of public political knowledge and how this affects public journalism efforts. Finally, we argue for educational reforms to aid public journalism in connecting to a more deliberative public.

Academic publishing is a strange business. One might hope and expect that most scholars, regardless of discipline, would see it as one of their major academic du-ties to share their findings, and to interact with their peers and the general popu-lace, via literal public-ation – the making-public of new knowledge. But even with such lofty ideals, the realpolitik of where, when, and how academics publish their scholarly work – based on the contemporary pressures and tensions of funding environments, the quantification and metricisation of scholarly work, and mecha-nisms for recognition and career reward – can lead to some curious and even per-verse effects.

This article examines the 'knowledge deficit' model, which still persists in liberal, technological societies. It is based upon the assumption that expert forms of knowledge, both in the sciences and the humanities, provide a sufficient basis for deciding the most important public policy questions. In this view, public perceptions and beliefs that run counter to this expert knowledge provide unacceptable justifications for public policies. Instead, support of expert knowledge needs to be 'built' through education and public relations strategies. This view is challenged on the basis of basic democratic theory, using the debate about genetically modified maize in Mexico as an example. 'Knowledge deficits' also exist on the side of experts.

How might social theory, public understanding of science and science policy best inform one another?. What have been the key features of science-society relations in the modern world?. How are we to re-think science-society relations in the context of globalization, hybridity and changing patterns of governance?. This topical and unique book draws together the three key perspectives on science-society relations: public understanding of science, scientific and public governance, and social theory. The book presents a series of case studies (including the debates on genetically modified foods an