IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p236-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Optimism or Pessimism about Genomic Science

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Hochschild
  • Maya Sen

Abstract

Like lay people, experts vary in their technology optimism or pessimism about scientific endeavors, for reasons that are poorly understood. We explore experts’ technology optimism through a focus on genomics; its novelty, life-and-death implications, complex technology, and broad but as yet unknown societal implications make it an excellent subject for studying views about new knowledge. We use interviews with scientific and medical elites to show a wide range of views about genomics, and we analyze about 750 articles by prominent social scientists, law professors, and biologists to explore how values and norms reinforce or supersede experts’ shared scientific knowledge. We find that experts in some fields give genomics more attention than experts in others; that they differ in the aspects of genomics on which they focus; and that within a discipline or field, scholars differ in the extent to which they find genomics attractive or aversive. Overall, however, experts in more liberal or humanities-oriented disciplines tend to be less optimistic about genomics than scholars in relatively more conservative or scientifically oriented disciplines. We speculate on why genomics is an exception to the usual finding that liberals support science more than conservatives do.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Hochschild & Maya Sen, 2015. "Technology Optimism or Pessimism about Genomic Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 236-252, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:236-252
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214558205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214558205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214558205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Durant, John, 1994. "What is scientific literacy?," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 83-89, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paul Goren, 2005. "Party Identification and Core Political Values," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 881-896, October.
    4. Jonathon P. Schuldt & Sungjong Roh & Norbert Schwarz, 2015. "Questionnaire Design Effects in Climate Change Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 67-85, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robin Bayes & James N. Druckman & Alauna C. Safarpour, 2022. "Studying Science Inequities: How to Use Surveys to Study Diverse Populations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 220-233, March.
    2. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    3. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    4. Jae‐Hee Jung, 2020. "The Mobilizing Effect of Parties' Moral Rhetoric," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 341-355, April.
    5. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    6. H. Whitt Kilburn, 2009. "Personal Values and Public Opinion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(4), pages 868-885, December.
    7. Arnstein Aassve & Gianmarco Daniele & Marco Le Moglie, 2018. "Never Forget the First Time: The Persistent Effects of Corruption and the Rise of Populism in Italy," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 1896, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    8. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "In the eye of the beholder: subjective inequality measures and the demand for redistribution," IEW - Working Papers 425, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. Marcelo de-Oliveira & Claudio Marcio Almeida & Emerson Wagner Mainardes, 2022. "Politics and social media: an analysis of factors anteceding voting intention," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 19(2), pages 309-332, June.
    10. Hava Ben-Horin & Yael Kali & Tali Tal, 2023. "The Fifth Dimension in Socio-Scientific Reasoning: Promoting Decision-Making about Socio-Scientific Issues in a Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & João V. Ferreira, 2020. "Conflicted voters: A spatial voting model with multiple party identifications," Post-Print hal-02909682, HAL.
    12. Neundorf, Anja & Cavaille, Charlotte, 2016. "The price of sharing: support for universal and equal access to health care in diversifying neighborhoods," ISER Working Paper Series 2016-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    13. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    14. Alan S. Gerber & Gregory A. Huber & Ebonya Washington, 2009. "Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 15365, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Paul G. Lewis & Mark Baldassare, 2010. "The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 219-237, April.
    16. Franklin G. Mixon & Chandini Sankaran & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2019. "Is Political Ideology Stable? Evidence from Long-Serving Members of the United States Congress," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Chen, Yangyang & Podolski, Edward J. & Rhee, S. Ghon & Veeraraghavan, Madhu, 2017. "Do progressive social norms affect economic outcomes? Evidence from corporate takeovers," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 76-95.
    18. Andreas Kuhn, 2009. "In the Eye of the Beholder: Subjective Inequality Measures and the Demand for Redistribution," NRN working papers 2009-14, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    19. A. Koivula & I. Kukkonen & J. Sivonen & P. Räsänen, 2020. "Is There Room for Ethical Consumers on the Finnish Political Spectrum?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 255-273, June.
    20. Andreas Kuhn, 2010. "Demand for redistribution, support for the welfare state, and party identification in Austria," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 37(2), pages 215-236, May.

    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:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:236-252. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.