Public understanding of the new genetics is often criticized in discussions about the social and ethical issues the new genetics raise. In this paper we challenge the “deficit model” evident in this dominant discourse, and offer a constructivist approach. We explore lay expertise about the new genetics, presenting an analysis of data from ten focus group discussions with a range of lay people. After distinguishing four different types of knowledge lay people hold—technical, methodological, institutional, and cultural—we go on to consider how lay people's mobilization of this “stock of knowledge” is influenced by social location and social context, exploring in particular interviewees' perceptions of relevancy. We conclude that identifying lay people as expert in, rather than ignorant of, the way genetics may shape their lives is a fundamental first step in moving toward greater lay participation in policy discussions and, ultimately, decision making about the new genetics and health.
This article asks what sociological insights an analysis of food allergy and food intolerance might afford. We outline the parameters of debates around food allergy and food intolerance in the immunological, clinical and epidemiological literatures in order to identify analytic strands which might illuminate our sociological understanding of the supposed increase in both. Food allergy and food intolerance are contested and contingent terms and it is salient that the term true food allergy is replete throughout medico-scientific, epidemiological and popular discourses in order to rebuff spurious or 'nonallergic' claims of food-related symptoms. Complexity theory is introduced as a means of gaining analytic purchase on the food allergy debate. The article concludes that the use of this perspective provides a contemporary example of the 'double hermeneutic', in that the meanings and interpretations of contemporary explanations of food allergy are both permeated by, and can be made sense of, through recourse to complexity thinking.
In this paper we examine new genetics professionals' accounts of the social context of their work. We analyse accounts given in interview by an 'elite' group of scientists and clinicians. Drawing on the work of Gilbert and Mulkay (1984), we consider interviewees' discourse about knowledge, exploring the way in which they separate science from society through the use of what we have called the 'micro/macro split'. We then go on to consider the reasons for such a discursive boundary, exploring the interviewees' wider discourse about expertise and responsibility for the social implications of the new genetics. We argue that interviewees' discursive boundaries allow them to appeal variously to their objectivity, to dismiss bad science and to characterize the public as ignorant. However, these discursive boundaries are permeable and flexible, and are employed to support the new genetics professionals' role in guiding education and government policy, whilst at the same time deflecting ultimate responsibility for the use of knowledge on to an abstract and amorphous society. Responsibility is flexibly embraced and abrogated. These flexible discursive boundaries thus promote rather than challenge the cognitive authority of new genetics professionals as they engage in debates about the social implications of their work. We end by challenging the replication of these discursive boundaries, noting some of the implications of such a critique for evaluation of the new genetics.
A B S T R AC TThis article offers an analysis of 28 lay accounts of the experience of living with either food allergy or food intolerance in England. We structure the presentation of our data in terms of Mike Bury's three types of narrative form -contingent, moral and core. We suggest that people with food allergies at risk of acute, severe and potentially fatal symptoms on exposure to allergens find their condition to be less socially problematic than do those who suffer intolerances to certain foods, which can result in chronic, but not life-threatening, symptoms. Drawing on the extant literatures on the sociology of food and eating we propose a conceptualization in relation to notions of identity, anomie and communality that attempts to make sense of this finding. K E Y WO R D Sfood allergy / food intolerance / lay accounts 289 Sociology
This paper explores clinicians’ and scientists’ accounts of genomic research in cancer care and the complexities and challenges involved with delivering this work. Contributing to the sociology of (low) expectations, we draw on sociological studies of uncertainty in medicine to explore their accounts of working with uncertainty as part of the management of patient and institutional expectations. We consider their appeals to the importance of modest inquiry and framing of the uncertainties of genomic medicine as normal and at times welcome as they sought to configure professional autonomy and jurisdictions and cultivate an experimental ethos amongst their patients. We argue that these types of uncertainty work [Star, S. L. 1985. “Scientific Work and Uncertainty.” Social Studies of Science 15 (3): 391–427] are a key feature of managing expectations at the intersections of genomic research and clinical care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.