Advertisement

Public Perception of and Public Participation in Microbial Source Tracking

  • Susan Allender-Hagedorn
Chapter

Abstract

Microbial source tracking (MST) is used to determine the source, extent, and content of water pollution; results from MST studies can be used to ameliorate the sources of pollution. If the general public is involved in such studies, MST can be an extremely valuable tool. (“The public” can include a local government official, a parent concerned about child safety, a congressman deciding about funding, and/or a water-resource manager; i.e., “the public” includes everyone with a stake in clean water.) But MST comes with a price tag, and national and international agencies that fund a great deal of MST work can be swayed by public opinion. Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can help or hinder MST testing and efforts to apply the results to improve polluted waters. If the public is not involved in an informed dissemination and/or application of the results, it will be difficult for MST results to lead to improvements to the affected waters. Without a clear perception of MST by this public, cooperation in making the necessary improvements and acceptance of MST can be hindered.

Keywords

Stakeholders Remediation Human Genome Project C.P. Snow Two cultures Science literacy Microbial source tracking Water pollution Public perception of science Public opinion Non-government organizations TMDLs 

References

  1. Allender-Hagedorn S (2001) Arguing the genome: A topology of the argumentation behind the construction of the Human Genome Project. Dissertation, Virginia TechGoogle Scholar
  2. Allender-Hagedorn S (2004) Evaluating known source tracking libraries: Artificial clustering. Environ Detection News 2(1):1–3Google Scholar
  3. Allender-Hagedorn S, Ruggiero CW (2009) Connecting popular culture and science: The case of biotechnology. In: Hayhoe GF, Grady HM (eds) Connecting people with technology: Issues in Professional Communication. Baywood, AmityvilleGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2008) Science and Policy: R&D Budget and Policy Program: Guide to R&D funding data – Total US $&D (1953). http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.html. Accessed 6 Mar 2010
  5. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2009) Building a competitive advantage for Canada. http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/reports/2009/prebudget_11_18_e.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2010
  6. Beecher N, Harrison E, Goldstein N et al (2005) Risk perception, risk communication, and stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research. J Environ Qual 34:122–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Belanche-Muñoz L, Blanch AR (2008) Machine learning methods for microbial source tracking. Environ Modelling Software 23:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickerson JW, Hagedorn C, Hassell A. (2006) Pathogen research symposium: Pathways and monitoring in natural and engineered systems. Symposium sponsored by Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, VA, VWRRC Special Report SR32–2006Google Scholar
  9. Dickerson JW, Hagedorn C, Hassall A (2007) Remediation of human-origin pollution at two public beaches in Virginia using multiple source tracking methods. Water Res. 41:3758–3770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans G, Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Pub Understand Sci 4:57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaskel G (2005) Interview: Public opinion in the science equation. RTDinfo 51: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/special_euro/01/article_3148_en.html. Accessed 24 May 2010
  12. Gould SJ (2000) Deconstructing the ‘science wars’ by reconstructing an old mold. Science magazine, 287 (14 Jan 2000): 253–261Google Scholar
  13. Graves AK (2000) Determining sources of fecal pollution in water for a rural Virginia community. Thesis, Virginia TechGoogle Scholar
  14. Graves AL, Hagedorn C, Teetor A et al. (2002) Determining sources of fecal pollution in water for a rural Virginia watershed. J Environ Qual 31:1300–1308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagedorn C, Allender-Hagedorn S (1997) Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Pub Understand Sci 6:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardy DR (1990) Towards a consensus. In: MacKenzie DR, Henry SC (eds) Biological monitoring of genetically engineered plants and microbes. Proceedings of the Kiawah Island Conference, Kiawah Island, 27–30 Nov 1991Google Scholar
  17. Hartel PG, Hagedorn C, McDonald, JL et al (2007) Exposing water samples to ultraviolet light improves fluorometry for detecting human fecal contamination. Water Research 41:3629–3642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobson A (2008) The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses. Physics Teacher 46:404–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409(6822):915Google Scholar
  20. Jasanoff S (1995) Procedural choices in regulatory “Science.” Tech in Soc 17(3):279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff S (2006) Sequestered science: The consequences of undisclosed knowledge article: Transparency in public science: Purposes, reasons, limits. Law & Contemp Probs 69(3):21–46Google Scholar
  22. Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes (2002) The citizen jury process, http://www.­jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury.html. Accessed 23 May 2010
  23. Kaurish FW, Younos T (2007) Developing a standardized water quality index for evaluating ­surface water quality. J Am Water Res Assoc 43(2):533–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kern J (2002) Application of source tracking results to performing TMDLs. Environ Detection News 1(1):1–3Google Scholar
  25. Koshland Jr. DE (1990) Two plus two equals five. Science 247:1381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krauss LM (2009) An update on C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures.” Sci Am 31 Sep 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-update-on-cp-snows-two-cultures. Accessed 5 Mar 2010
  27. Leiserowitz A (nd) International public opinion, perception, and understanding of global climate change. http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/IntlPublicOpinion.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2010
  28. Lemaux PG (1999) The interplay of public perception issues and federal regulatory policy in agricultural biotechnology: A U.S. perspective. http://www.cdesign.com.au/proceedings_abts1999/papers/P_G_Lemaux2.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2010
  29. Miller JD (2008) The impact of college science courses for non-science majors on adult science literacy. Paper presented to symposium on the critical role of college science courses for non-majors, annual meeting AAAS, San Francisco, 18 Feb 2007. In Hobson A (2008) The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses. Physics Teacher 46:404–406Google Scholar
  30. Nagel D (2009) NSF: Federal role in academic R&D funding has diminished. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/06/nsf-federal-role-in-academic-r-d-funding-has-diminished.aspx. Accessed 11 Mar 2010
  31. National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) Responsible science: vol I: Panel on scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1864page=67. Accessed 6 Mar 2010
  32. National Science Foundation (2009) Federal government’s share of university R&D funding drops to 60 percent: Press release 09–182. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSFcntn_id=115710preview=false. Accessed 10 Apr 2010
  33. Oppenheimer F (1968) Rationale for a science museum, http://www.exploratorium.edu/frank/rationale/index.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2010
  34. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (2009) Main science and technology indicators (MSTI): 2009/2 edition. http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,3343,en_2649_34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2010
  35. Phillips T (nd) About.com guide: What is orphan drug status. http://biotech.about.com/od/faq/f/orphandrugs.html. Accessed 3 Mar 2010
  36. Powers S (2008) National trends in science and engineering funding and research priorities: Updates from the ASEE Engineering Research Council. http://www.asee.org/conferences/erc/2008/Presentations.cfm. Accessed 7 Mar 2010
  37. Ribidous CA (1997) “The Human Genome Project: Novel approaches, probable reasoning, and the advancement of science.” In: Advances in the history of rhetoric: The centrality of rhetoric, a collection of selected papers presented at ASHR conferences in 1997 vol2, Am Soc Hist Rhetoric, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  38. Robson MT (1993) Federal funding and the level of private expenditure on basic research. South Econ J 60(1):63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaefer KA, Bielak AT (2005) CCME: Linking water science to policy: Workshop series final report: Overview and lessons learned. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/water_wkshp_smryrpt_2004_e.pdf. Accessed Mar 3 2010
  40. Science Daily (2007) Scientific literacy: How do Americans stack up? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.html. Accessed 13 Mar 2010
  41. Todd A (2008) Strategies for reporting results from Ontario’s water quality monitoring programs. In: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME National science and technology workshop on water quality monitoring PN 1419, 5–6 Feb 2008, Fredericton. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/wqm_workshop_2008_02_e_pn1419.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2010
  42. URP Toolbox. (nd) Welcome to the citizen science toolbox. https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/index.php. Accessed 20 May 2010
  43. US General Accounting Office (2002) Water infrastructure: Information on financing, capital planning, and privatization (GAO-02–764). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02764.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2010

Further Reading1

  1. Bauer M, Durant J, Evan G (1994) European public perceptions of science. Int J Public Opinion Res 6(2):163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collini S (1993) Introduction. In: Snow CP (ed) The two cultures (Canto). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickson D (1988) The new politics of science (with a new preface). University Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Report of the experts scientific workshop on critical research needs for the development of new or revised recreational water quality criteria Report: EPA-823-R-07. Workshop at Airlie Center, Warrenton, 26–30 Mar 2007Google Scholar
  5. Hayhoe GF, Grady HM (eds) (2009) Connecting people with technology: Issues in professional communication. Baywood Publ Co, AmityvilleGoogle Scholar
  6. Jensen ET, McLellan SL (2005) Beach closings: Science versus public perception. ActionBioscience.org. http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/jensen_mclellan.html Accessed 10 Mar 2010
  7. Lakes, rivers, streams and ponds partnership (2007) What’s our water worth? The economic impact of potential decline in New Hampshire water quality: The link between visitor perceptions, usage and spending, Phase IV report, May 2007, http://www.nhrivers.org/documents/Econ%20Study%20Brochure.pdf Accessed 9 Mar 2010
  8. Nelkin D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. W. H. Freeman, CranburyGoogle Scholar
  9. Thomas L (1977) The medusa and the snail. Penguin Books, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. (1999) Proceedings of the science for the twenty-first century, Budapest, Hungary 26 June-1 July, http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.html Accessed 11 Mar 2010
  11. Wynne B (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S et al. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publ, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations