E Pieri

The scientists think and the public feels : expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food.

Debates about new technologies, such as crop and food genetic modification (GM), raise pressing questions about the ways ‘experts’ and ‘ nonexperts’ communicate. These debates are dynamic, characterized by many voices contesting numerous storylines. The discoursal features, including language choices and communication strategies, of the GM debate are in some ways taken for granted and in others actively manipulated by participants. Although there are many voices, some have more influence than others. This study makes use of 50 hours of in-depth interviews with GM scientists, nonexperts, and other stakeholders in the GM debate to examine this phenomenon. We uncover rhetorical devices used by scientists to characterize and ultimately undermine participation by non-experts in areas including rationality, knowledge, understanding and objectivity. Scientists engage with ‘the public’ from their own linguistic and social domain, without reflexive confirmation of their own status as part of the public and the citizenry. This raises a number of interesting ironies and contradictions, which are explored in the article. As such, it provides valuable insights into an increasingly important type of discourse.

“Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions

This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified (GM) food debate during the first half of 2003, and both expert and non-expert reactions to that coverage. Two pro-GM newspapers and two anti-GM newspapers were selected for analysis, and all articles mentioning GM during the period in question were stored in a machine readable database. This was then analyzed using corpus linguistic and discourse analytic techniques to reveal recurrent wording, themes and content. This text analysis was complemented by 12 interviews with experts involved in the communication of GM issues, and 12 focus-group sessions in which members of the public reacted to selected newspaper texts and other GM material. Both in the press and in public reaction, the issue of GM was found to be intimately associated with other political events of the time, notably the invasion of Iraq. Except among experts, there was little awareness of the official national debate and issues were approached in more general terms. Pro-GM characterization of the issues as primarily scientific, both by newspapers and experts, was rejected by the anti-GM press and campaigners, and by the focus-group participants. They assessed the issues in a more global frame, rejecting scientists and companies as unreliable. In addition, they linked both US and British GM policy to the invasion of Iraq, and, by analogy, rejected pro-GM arguments as untrustworthy.

SOCIOLOGY OF EXPECTATION AND THE E-SOCIAL SCIENCE AGENDA

This paper explores the relevance of sociology of expectation in conceptualizing some of the tensions emerging in the UK context from the attempts to engage communities of social scientists, anthropologists and colleagues in cognate disciplines with e-social science. As the uptake of e-science proceeds fast in many scientific domains – from genetics to physics, from biology to clinical medicine – many social scientists and scholars in cognate disciplines remain apparently unaware or unimpressed by the promises of linking up large-scale data sets of fieldwork, and having access to the new tools and technologies that are being developed to cope with this scaling up of data set size. Science and Technology Studies (STS) has theorized technological innovations, and highlighted how they come packaged with expectations of their applications, their benefits and sometimes their risks. Future scenarios are projected in which a technology is integrated with society at large and with representations of everyday life. In line with an STS approach, instead of debating the likelihood of possible scenarios, this paper calls for uncovering the values and preferences that are implicitly inbuilt in the visions of the proponents of e-social science. It is only once these are rendered explicit that one can begin to explore the extent to which these values are shared across sections of the research community, or the extent to which they may be specific of certain stakeholders only. The process, it is argued, ultimately allows for a more transparent debate, and a negotiation of which values end up being up-taken in research policy and why.

'It could just be an additional test, couldn't it?': Genetic testing for susceptibility to aggression and violence

Much of the current genetic research into aggressive and violent behavior focuses on young people and might appear to offer the hope of targeted prediction and intervention. In the UK data are collected on children from various agencies and collated to produce “at risk of offending” identities used to justify intervention. Information from behavioral genetic tests could conceivably be included. Regulatory frameworks for collecting, storing and using information from DNA samples differ between the health service and the police particularly in the need for consent and the treatment of children. This paper draws on discussions with professionals involved with “problem” young people to consider their views on the utility of genetic research for tackling violent/aggressive behavior and the impact an identification of genetic susceptibility might have on their clients.

Pharmacogenetics of addictive behaviours: Philosophical queries and public concerns

W.H. Berrettini, L. De Lisi, L. Fañanàs, S.V. Faraone, E.S. Gershon, M. Gill, J. Kennedy, J. Mallet, F. McMahon, O. Mors, M. Owen, L. Peltonen, P. Propping, A. Thapar, R.D. Todd, C. Van Broeckhoven