Ahteensuu, M., & Siipi, H. (2009). A critical assessment of public consultations on GMOs in the European Union. Environmental Values,
Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology,
Brown, S. (2009). The new deficit model. Nature Nanotechnology,
Bubela, T., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology,
Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2002). Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature,
Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society,
Currall, S. C. (2008). New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology,
Currall, S. C., et al. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology,
Currall, S. C., et al. (2007). Authors’ response. Nature Nanotechnology,
Dickson, D. (2005). The case of ‘deficit model’ of science communication. Science and Development Network
. Accessed on November 17, 2010.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature,
Editors. (2009). A seedy practice. Scientific American,
EEA = European Environment Agency. (2001). Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896
. Accessed on November 17, 2010.
Einsiedel, E. (2007). Editorial: Of publics and science. Public Understanding of Science,
European Commission. (2005). Special eurobarometer
224: Europeans, science and technology.
European Commission. (2008a). Special eurobarometer 295: Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment.
European Commission. (2008b). Qualitative study on the image of science and the research policy of the European Union.
European Commission. (2010). Special eurobarometer
340: Science and technology.
Evans, R. (2008). The sociology of expertise: The distribution of social fluency. Sociology Compass,
Evans, G. A., & Durant, J. R. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science,
Foot, P. (1958). Moral arguments. Mind,
Frankena, W. K. (1939). The naturalistic fallacy. Mind,
Gaskell, G., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends: Eurobarometer 64.3
. Accessed on November 17, 2010.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0.
Gaskell, G., et al. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Nature,
Gregory, J., & Lock, J. (2008). The evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass,
Hails, R., & Kinderlerer, J. (2003). The GM public debate: Context and communication strategies. Nature Reviews,
Hansen, J., et al. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite,
Hansson, S. O. (2008). Science and pseudo-science. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
. Accessed on September 27, 2010.
INRA (Europe)—ECOSA. (2000). Eurobarometer 52.1.: The Europeans and biotechnology.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstood science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, M. (2008). Fearing the fear of nanotechnology. Nature (Dec. 9), 1290.
Kahan, D. M., et al. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology,
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist,
Kvakkestad, V., et al. (2007). Scientists’ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values,
Kvanvig, J. (2003). The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lidskog, R. (2008). Scientised citizens and democratised science: Re-assessing the expert-lay divide. Journal of Risk Research,
Louët, S. (2001). EC study reveals an informed public. Nature,
Marris, C., et al. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project. Commissioned by the EC.
Martin, S., & Tait, J. (1992). Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology. In J. Durant (Ed.), Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research (pp. 28–41). London: Science Museum.
Midden, C., et al. (2002). The structure of public perceptions. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 203–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 04-1; volume 2, NSB 04-1A).
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).
O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics
. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2006). Are Europeans really antagonistic to biotech? Nature,
Pardo, R., Midden, C., & Miller, J. D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology,
Peters, H. P. (2000). From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technology. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 265–286). Amsterdam: Harwood.
Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science: Report of the royal society’s ad hoc group. London: The Royal Society.
Royal Society. (2004). Science in society report. London: The Royal Society.
Savadori, L., et al. (2004). Expert and public perceptions of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis,
Scheufele, D. A., et al. (2008a). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology,
Scheufele, D. A., et al. (2008b). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology,
Searle, J. R. (1964). How to derive “ought” from “is”. Philosophical Review,
Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., & MacGregor, D. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology,
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science,
Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2005). Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society,
Walton, D. (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly,
Waltz, E. (2009). GM crops: Battlefield. Nature,
Whiteside, K. H. (2006). Precautionary politics: Principle and practice in confronting environmental risk. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research,
Wintle, B., Burgman, M., & Fidler, F. (2007). How fast should nanotechnology advance? Nature Nanotechnology,
Wright, N., & Nerlich, B. (2006). Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: The case of foot and mouth science. Public Understanding of Science,
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, and Human Values,
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as means of restoring public trust in science–Hitting the notes, but missing the music. Community Genetics,
Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values,