IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p236-252.html

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. Dan M. Kahan, 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    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. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Kristen D. Deppe & Frank J. Gonzalez & Jayme L. Neiman & Carly Jacobs & Jackson Pahlke & Kevin B. Smith & John R. Hibbing, 2015. "Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 314-331, July.
    3. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    8. Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu & Nüfer Yasin Ateş, 2022. "Arguing to Defeat: Eristic Argumentation and Irrationality in Resolving Moral Concerns," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 519-535, January.
    9. Ali, Ayesha & Qazi, Ihsan Ayyub, 2023. "Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    10. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    11. Welsch, Heinz, 2021. "How climate-friendly behavior relates to moral identity and identity-protective cognition: Evidence from the European social surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    12. Joergen Oerstroem Moeller, 2014. "Into The Age Of Non-Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 59(03), pages 1-28.
    13. Travis Chow & Zhongwen Fan & Li Huang & Oliver Zhen Li & Siman Li, 2023. "Reciprocity in Corporate Tax Compliance—Evidence from Ozone Pollution," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 61(5), pages 1425-1477, December.
    14. Daniele Pennesi, 2020. "Identity and information acquisition," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 610, Collegio Carlo Alberto, revised 2021.
    15. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    16. Roland Benabou & Armin Falk & Jean Tirole, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," Working Papers id:12918, eSocialSciences.
    17. Matt A. Barreto & Claudia Alegre & J. Isaiah Bailey & Alexandria Davis & Joshua Ferrer & Joyce Nguy & Christopher Palmisano & Crystal Robertson, 2023. "Black Lives Matter and the Racialized Support for the January 6th Insurrection," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 64-82, July.
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Willem Van Rensburg & Brian W. Head, 2017. "Climate Change Scepticism: Reconsidering How to Respond to Core Criticisms of Climate Science and Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(4), pages 21582440177, December.
    20. Trey Malone & F. Bailey Norwood, 2020. "Gluten aversion is not limited to the political left," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.