A Model for Communication about BiotechnologySense Publishers, 2006 - 100 pages This book incorporates two major themes into a model for communication about biotechnology. The first is that of a communicating community, defined as a relatively coherent social group engaging in communication within itself. As biotechnologists do not constitute a unitary group, this book refers to biotechnology communities. Similarly, the broad notion of 'the public' is considered to be inadequate, and the notion of distinct public communities is used. The members of each community are considered to have a view of biotechnology made up of their understandings of the nature of science of biotechnology, understandings of the key concepts and models used in biotechnology, perceptions of the nature of risk, and beliefs and attitudes about biotechnology. The second major theme is that of search space. This is the intersection, in a virtual arena, of the components of the 'views' of two communities. Where there are elements that are in common to the two, communication in terms of them is possible. Where there is no commonality, the degrees of understanding reached must be used to construct a mutual understanding that may evolve into an agreement. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 37
Page viii
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 6
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 7
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 8
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 9
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Contents
Introduction | 1 |
The need for improved communication about modernbiotechnology | 3 |
Biotechnologists and communication An enquiry | 13 |
Building a model Language and the making of meaning | 23 |
Building a model Knowledge and risk | 41 |
The model and a programme of research and development | 51 |
References | 56 |
Public concerns aboutTransgenic Animals5 | 63 |
Embryonic stem cells and human therapeutic and reproductivecloning | 69 |
Environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms7 | 79 |
The safety of genetically modified foods | 89 |
Relationship to publicperceptions of biotechnology | 97 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
acceptance adult analysis antibiotic resistance applications argument assessment attitudes Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria beliefs benefits Biotechnology Association Journal biotechnology community BIOTENZ cognitive Commission on Genetic components concerns context debate discourse discussion effects Eichelbaum environment environmental impacts ethical example explanation genetic engineering genetic modification genetically modified foods genetically modified organisms genre GM animals GM crops GM foods GM plants GMOs groups horizontal gene transfer human embryos IBAC identified Intellectual property protection interest involved issues knowledge legislation Maddox marker McIntyre model for communication monarch butterflies nature of science non-GM non-target nuclear transfer NZ Herald parasitoids participants patent system perceptions of risk pollen potential problems protein public community public perception questions reproductive cloning Retrieved role Royal Commission science and technology Science Education scientific scientists search space social specific speech acts stem cell research techniques therapeutic cloning tissue transgenic animals trust Zealand Biotechnology Association
Popular passages
Page 86 - Comparative efficacy of Beauveria bassiana, Bacillus thuringiensis, and aldicarb for control of Colorado potato beetle in an irrigated desert agroecosystem and their effects on biodiversity.