Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ungar, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bray, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke

Sheldon Ungar

Department of Social Science, 1265 Military Trail, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1C 1A4ungar{at}utsc.utoronto.ca

Dennis Bray

Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Geesthact, Germany

This paper examines the silencing of science, that is, efforts to prevent the making of specific scientific claims in any or all of the arenas in which these claims are typically reported or circulated. Those trying to mute the reporting or circulation of scientific claims are termed "partisans." The paper examines silencing through a systematic examination of the "rapid responses" to a smoking study published in the British Medical Journal claiming that secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as conventionally believed. Media coverage of the smoking study is also examined, as is the question of whether there is self-silencing by the media regarding doubts about the negative effects of passive smoke. The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, 5-23 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662505048515
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
S. Greenland
Accounting for uncertainty about investigator bias: disclosure is informative: How could disclosure of interests work better in medicine, epidemiology and public health?
J Epidemiol Community Health, August 1, 2009; 63(8): 593 - 598.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
M. S. Schafer
From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical Assessment of Changes in Science Coverage
Science Communication, June 1, 2009; 30(4): 475 - 505.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
J. B. Wolf
Is Breast Really Best? Risk and Total Motherhood in the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, August 1, 2007; 32(4): 595 - 636.
[Abstract] [PDF]