No description available.

No description available.

One important aspect of the UK societal debate regarding genetic modification (GM) of food crops is the non-acceptance by the public of 'science-based' assurances by spokespersons from Industry and Government. A feature of the GM controversy has been scientific experts on opposite sides of the debate disagreeing in public. This research examines factors underlying that dispute. Scientists who have expressed their views on GM in the public arena and who represent different positions on the spectrum of opinion were interviewed in depth. Rather than simply pointing towards a pro-GM technocratic government-industry coalition, challenged by anti-GM protagonists calling for a more democratic, participative approach, the data are interpreted here as showing a more complex interaction, which corresponds to that predicted by cultural theory. A cultural theory interpretation of the data has theorised that the scientists' different perspectives on the risks and benefits of GM technology and on the causes and preferred solutions to the GM controversy, are based on cultural biases and the associated four 'myths of nature'. The key features of these four different perspectives can be summarised as being an emphasis on: coercion/holism (autonomous), participation (egalitarian), regulation (hierarchist) and competition (individualist). The scientists offer conflicting accounts about the influence of values on the nature of scientific knowledge used in GM technology. Further, each holder of a particular perspective does not understand the basis for the positions of their opponents. The cultural influence on scientists' perspectives identified in this study may be under-recognised, unacknowledged or misunderstood by policy makers. The implications are that the status of a dominant rationality of a single, objective, identifiable 'sound science' on which policy-makers base regulation and risk management decisions should be questioned. An improved understanding of these influences may lead to a realisation that GM decisions are actually choices made between plural rationalities. PhD Thesis PLURAL RATIONALITIES, CONTESTED EXPERTISE: UK SCIENTISTS AND GM CROPS Maggie Scott Bsc (Hons) Faculty of Technology The Open University 31 May 2005

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study described UK trainee teachers’ understandings of and attitudes to radioactivity and ionising radiation, in one School of Education. The investigation addressed three research questions. The first focussed on the understanding of alpha, beta and gamma radiations. The second looked at risk assessments involving alpha, beta and gamma radiations and, the third, explored attitudes to alpha, beta and gamma radiations. An innovative tool called ‘interviews about experimental scenarios’ (IAES) and survey questionnaires were administered to physics, chemistry, biology and history specialists. The collected evidence supported the hypothesis that increased time spent in formal science education correlates with a better understanding and more positive and rational attitudes. The trainee teachers were considered to be well-educated members of the public and, therefore, the findings to offer a reasonable ‘best-case scenario’ of the public understanding of science. However, understanding was incomplete and misconceptions existed. Unique to this research were the misconceptions that alpha, beta and gamma radiations reflect back from shiny surfaces similar to light and also refract in water. The study identified implications arising from its findings and made specific recommendations for communicators of science to the public, Initial Teacher Training and Continuing Professional Development for teachers.

Ce travail de thèse porte sur les représentations sociales du corps amputé et appareillé, dans l’imaginaire collectif contemporain. Il s’agira d’observer, de comparer et d’analyser la façon dont l’espace public et médiatique s’empare du champ des prothèses, et de confronter ces projections et imaginaires collectifs, avec la façon dont les amputés eux mêmes (mais aussi les soignants qui côtoient et les entourent) se représentent et construisent leur identité sociale et corporelle, afin de démontrer qu'un certain décalage sépare ce que l'on croit connaître des amputés et des prothèses, et ce qu'il en est réellement sur le terrain (problématiques réelles, pratiques et usages au quotidien). L’objectif sera aussi de tenter de formuler des propositions permettant de remettre la personne amputée au coeur de considérations plus rationnelles, pragmatiques et éthiques, loin de toute projection, spéculation et fantasmagorie. / This thesis research focuses on the social representations of the amputated body fitted with prostheses, in the light of the contemporary collective imagination. The aim will be to observe, compare and analyse the way in which the public and media consider the field of prostheses, and bring these collective projections and imaginations face to face with how the amputees (but also the care givers who surround them) see themselves and construct their own social and bodily identity. The goal is to reveal the existence of a certain gap between what the collective discourse producers (media, scientists) think to know about amputees and prostheses, and the reality observed on site (practical problems, customs and practices of everyday life). The final aim will be to formulate proposals to overcome these ambiguous conceptions, to question the notions of social inclusion and exclusion of disability and the technological repairs of the body, and to put the amputees at the heart of more rational, pragmatic and ethical considerations, far from any prediction, speculation and phantasmagoria.

This doctoral submission grew out of a series of long form documentaries that I wrote, produced, and directed between 1993 and the present. The films, which were broadcast on US television's PBS network, all deal with scientific, medical, or environmental issues that developed into prominent national and international controversies. DVDs and scripts of the seven programs are provided along with a detailed overview. The submission is organized as three projects and an overview. 1. Project One (discussed in chapters 3-7) consists of three documentaries: the first about a novel therapy for autism ; the second dealing with the alleged health effects of power line electromagnetic fields ; and the third focused on the silicone breast implant controversy. 2. Project Two (discussed in chapters 8-11) consists of programs on nuclear energy, Gulf War Syndrome, and genetically modified foods. 3. Project Three (discussed in chapters 12-14) features a two-hour special investigation of global warming. 4. The Overview, Communicating Controversy in the Mass Media not only provides an overarching analysis of the portfolio of films and the attendant theoretical issues, but also serves to summarize the works themselves. In the Project sections of the written overview (chapters 3-14), the analysis is interwoven with extracts from the various documentaries. This portfolio and overview tells the evolving story of a body of work at the intersection of documentary, investigative journalism and science. It reveals the journey of one producer who started out with an interest in unpacking complex controversies, but became increasingly fascinated with the psychological and political dimensions of these narratives. Whether a particular controversial belief holds up under scrutiny is undoubtedly important. But there are other fascinating questions: why do people adopt such beliefs in the first place; why do individuals cling to their beliefs in the face of contrary scientific evidence; and what roles do special interests and the media play in amplifying or attenuating the public's hopes and fears? This portfolio and overview, therefore, not only examine a series of high profile controversies, but go further by: explaining the process by which these topics were turned into documentaries; exploring the way humans analyze, perceive and communicate benefits and risks; and critically examining the validity and ethical standing of modern television journalism. This submission represents a significant contribution to knowledge in several ways. First this series of in-depth, original investigations of environmental and health controversies from one producer is unparalleled in broadcast journalism. Second, the overview's analysis synthesizes and extends a wide range of social science research on risk assessment, risk perception and risk communication and applies this research to the featured controversies and the media's role in them. Third, the portfolio and overview reveal how a blend of documentary, journalism and science is an especially effective way of advancing public understanding of and engagement with modern scientific controversies and goes on to suggest some exciting new directions for communicators. Finally, the case studies in this portfolio provide a basis of knowledge about how communicators can effectively use audiovisual media to navigate the world of risks and benefits that permeates many of society's most crucial policy dilemmas.