Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Behavioral Scientist
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by JUANILLO, N. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Risks and Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology

Can Scientific and Public Talk Meet?

NAPOLEON K. JUANILLO, JR.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article outlines the direction and tenor of two distinct discourses on agricultural biotechnology. Scientific talk about biotechnology must be seen in the historical context of the status given to science in arriving at knowledge. On the other hand, public talk about biotechnology is largely informed by a number of factors beyond the realm of science and reflects contemporary trends toward the need for public inputs in risk assessment and risk management. Heeding public concerns about the risks of agricultural biotechnology may improve communication between scientists and the lay public and consequently lead to better regulatory policies. This article suggests participatory communication as a guide for action. Yet, it recognizes the limits of public participation when public opinion and perception overwhelm the voice of science and become the principal basis for regulatory and policy decisions on agricultural biotechnology.

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 8, 1246-1266 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/00027640121956809
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Public Opin ResHome page
D. Brossard and M. C. Nisbet
Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2007; 19(1): 24 - 52.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
A. Henderson, C. K. Weaver, and G. Cheney
Talking 'facts': identity and rationality in industry perspectives on genetic modification
Discourse Studies, February 1, 2007; 9(1): 9 - 41.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
S. G. PUEPPKE
Agricultural Biotechnology and Plant Improvement: Setting the Stage for Social and Economic Dialogue
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 2001; 44(8): 1233 - 1245.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
K. P. DONAGHY
Some Moral, Ethical, and Transethical Issues Raised by Biotechnology and How We Might Deliberate About Them
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 2001; 44(8): 1267 - 1282.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
C. H. NELSON
Risk Perception, Behavior, and Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Organisms: Toward Understanding American and European Public Reaction
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 2001; 44(8): 1371 - 1388.
[Abstract] [PDF]