IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v49y1999i9p1239-1255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk, science and policy: definitional struggles, information management, the media and BSE

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, David

Abstract

This article examines the role of definitional struggles in the science-policy interface using the example of the cattle disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease in the UK. A central contention is that an explicit focus on definition illuminates the processes by which scientific judgements are made, promoted, communicated, assessed and judged and gives an improved picture of policy making. Neglected areas such as the role of secrecy, public relations and the mass media in the science-policy interface are brought into sharper focus as an intrinsic part of the wider operation of definitional struggles. The focus on definitional struggles also sheds light on some current work on risk in social theory. It is argued that the neglect of questions of agency which are central to definitional struggles has led to some theorists presenting risks as inevitable concomitants of technological and cultural developments leaving them in the grip of political quietism.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, David, 1999. "Risk, science and policy: definitional struggles, information management, the media and BSE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(9), pages 1239-1255, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:9:p:1239-1255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00163-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Washer, Peter, 2006. "Representations of mad cow disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 457-466, January.
    2. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    3. John Eyles & Nicole Consitt, 2006. "Global Infectious Disease and Canada's Role: What Can Be Done?," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 32(3), pages 301-316, September.
    4. Catherine E. Althaus, 2005. "A Disciplinary Perspective on the Epistemological Status of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 567-588, June.
    5. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:9:p:1239-1255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.