IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v60y2005i2p331-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research

Author

Listed:
  • Bates, Benjamin R.
  • Lynch, John A.
  • Bevan, Jennifer L.
  • Condit, Celeste M.

Abstract

This paper discusses how the American public accounts for the concerns that they have about genetic research and the benefits that they foresee. We develop a general framework for discussing public claims about genetic technology based on Stephen Toulmin's model of warrants in argumentation. After a review of the results from public opinion polls about genetic research, we present a focus group study of public understandings of genetics. We outline the warrants, or publicly accepted "good reasons", that this group offers for accepting some aspects of genetic technology and for rejecting other aspects. The warrants presented by the public in their discussion of genetic research indicate that the public has a complex, informed understanding of genetic research, albeit a non-technical one. The paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of public participation in debates over genetic research and the ways that researchers and policymakers could adapt to public concerns about genetics.

Suggested Citation

  • Bates, Benjamin R. & Lynch, John A. & Bevan, Jennifer L. & Condit, Celeste M., 2005. "Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 331-344, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:2:p:331-344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00246-1
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henderson, Bethan J. & Maguire, Bryan T., 2000. "Three lay mental models of disease inheritance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 293-301, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gail E. Henderson, 2008. "Introducing Social and Ethical Perspectives on Gene—Environment Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(2), pages 251-276, November.
    2. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Bennett, Paul & Smith, Susan J., 2007. "Genetics, insurance and participation: How a Citizens' Jury reached its verdict," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2487-2498, June.
    4. Heather Skirton & Lorraine Q Frazier & Amy O Calvin & Marlene Z Cohen, 2006. "A legacy for the children – attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 565-573, May.
    5. Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.

    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. Heather Skirton & Lorraine Q Frazier & Amy O Calvin & Marlene Z Cohen, 2006. "A legacy for the children – attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 565-573, May.
    2. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.

    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:60:y:2005:i:2:p:331-344. 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: 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.