Genetically modified pronouns

http://www.regard.ac.uk/research_findings/RES-000-22-0132/report.pdf [Published: 21-Nov-04 | Permalink | Category: Science seen]
Brief government report from the UK on how the depiction of prominent, complicated science issues affects the public's perception. They talked about GM crops but it could've been stem cells or nano or such. Two slightly scary quotes:

Our focus group participants appeared to share the view, expressed half a century ago by C. Wright Mills that a "Power Elite" consisting of military, economic and political leaders, have oligopolistic control over foreign and domestic policy decisions (Mills, 1956), and informants regard GM as symbolic of this domination.

The scientists interviewed in our earlier project used "we" to refer to a perceived community of scientists only, whereas non-scientists linked scientists with governments as "them".

Mind you, I might have detected partisanship in the report itself, which says at one point "Anti-GM commentators however, were much more in touch with the contextual zeitgeist". This is in marked contrast to those reductionist, stuffy, ivory-tower, zeitgeistless scientists.

Comments are now closed for this entry. Try email instead. Thanks.

Movable Type 4.1 | common syndicated-feed-icon.gif feed(add to Google) (validate it) | Creative Commons license | xml sitemap | xhtml1.0 | css | File under: brilliance, incomplete demonstration of

ortholog.com: commonplacings, preponed futures, brainworthy memes, paradigm fragments, rigorously conceived musings, gists, free association on free science, stuff I have nowhere else to put. All the opinions and interpretations are my own. This site exists neither for nor despite you, but you are more than welcome to read it.