Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research

被引:103
作者
Bates, BR
Lynch, JA
Bevan, JL
Condit, CA
机构
[1] Ohio Univ, Sch Commun Studies, Athens, OH 45701 USA
[2] Univ Georgia, Dept Speech Commun, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[3] Univ Nevada, Greenspun Sch Commun, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA
关键词
genetic technology; public opinion; warrants; public understanding of science; USA;
D O I
10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.012
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
This paper discusses how the American public accounts for the concerns that they have about genetic research and the benefits that they foresee. We develop a general framework for discussing public claims about genetic technology based on Stephen Toulmin's model of warrants in argumentation. After a review of the results from public opinion polls about genetic research, we present a focus group study of public understandings of genetics. We outline the warrants, or publicly accepted "good reasons", that this group offers for accepting some aspects of genetic technology and for rejecting other aspects. The warrants presented by the public in their discussion of genetic research indicate that the public has a complex, informed understanding of genetic research, albeit a non-technical one. The paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of public participation in debates over genetic research and the ways that researchers and policy makers could adapt to public concerns about genetics. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:331 / 344
页数:14
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   Privacy and confidentiality of genetic information: What rules for the new science? [J].
Anderlik, MR ;
Rothstein, MA .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENOMICS AND HUMAN GENETICS, 2001, 2 :401-433
[2]  
[Anonymous], REGENTS U CALIFORNIA
[3]   What do you think about genetic medicine? - Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics [J].
Barns, I ;
Schibeci, R ;
Davison, A ;
Shaw, R .
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2000, 25 (03) :283-308
[4]  
BATES BR, 2004, IN PRESS J HLTH COMM
[5]  
BATES BR, 2003, ARGUMENTATION ADVOCA, V39, P254
[6]   Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate [J].
Caulfield, T ;
Gold, ER ;
Cho, MK .
NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, 2000, 1 (03) :227-231
[7]  
CUNNINGHAMBURLE.S, 1999, DEV FOCUS GROUP RES
[8]   Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology [J].
Davison, A ;
Barns, I ;
Schibeci, R .
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 1997, 22 (03) :317-348
[9]   THE POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACT OF PREDICTIVE GENETIC TESTING FOR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COMMON CHRONIC DISEASES - A REVIEW AND PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA [J].
DAVISON, C ;
MACINTYRE, S ;
SMITH, GD .
SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS, 1994, 16 (03) :340-371
[10]   Cloning and its discontents - a Canadian perspective [J].
Einsiedel, EF .
NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2000, 18 (09) :943-944