This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jasanoff, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996

Department of Science and Technology Studies at Cornell University, 632 Clark Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853-2501, USA

During the UK's BSE crisis of 1996, citizens and their public institutions experienced an unprecedented breakdown of communication that I call `civic dislocation'—a mismatch between what governmental institutions were supposed to do for the public, and what they actually did. Trust in government vanished, and people looked elsewhere for information and advice. In the UK, public confidence in governmental advisers rests on the reliability of persons rather than (primarily) the rationality of their views; in the USA, on the other hand, trust rests in formal processes and styles of reasoning that ensure the transparency and objectivity of governmental decisions. UK policy institutions require a set of conditions—among them a shared, unambiguous problem definition, relative certainty about `objective facts' and identifiable expert knowledge—which in the BSE case simply did not exist. Given the pervasive uncertainties, the distance between citizens and experts was greatly reduced, and the lay public was almost as well positioned as the experts to make sensible decisions about how to avoid the risk of BSE. This reading of civic dislocation in the UK should make us wary of recent proposals to create pockets of insulated expertise within the US risk management system to neutralize unfounded public fears through rationality, expertise, insulation and authority. A programme that values rationality and efficiency most highly leaves little room or reason for lay inputs; and, by putting too little faith in people and too much in the objectivity of formal analysis, may also carry the seeds of civic dislocation.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, 221-232 (1997)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Moore and J. Stilgoe Experts and Anecdotes: The Role of ''Anecdotal Evidence'' in Public Scientific Controversies Science Technology Human Values, September 1, 2009; 34(5): 654 - 677. [Abstract] [PDF]

				U. Felt, M. Fochler, A. Muller, and M. Strassnig Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 354 - 371. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J. Lehmkuhl Congruency within rural social networks as an indicator of interpersonal influence on risk judgments: the great stir caused by BSE in a village in northern Germany. Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2008; 17(4): 485 - 502. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Schibeci and J. Harwood Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 245 - 255. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hilgartner Overflow and Containment in the Aftermath of Disaster Social Studies of Science, February 1, 2007; 37(1): 153 - 158. [PDF]

				H. Joffe and N. Y. L. Lee Social Representation of a Food Risk: The Hong Kong Avian Bird Flu Epidemic J Health Psychol, July 1, 2004; 9(4): 517 - 533. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Greenberg Creating the "Pillars": Multiple Meanings of a Hubble Image Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2004; 13(1): 83 - 95. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. O'Neill A Vital Fluid: Risk, Controversy and the Politics of Blood Donation in the Era of "Mad Cow Disease" Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2003; 12(4): 359 - 380. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. CALSAMIGLIA and C. L. FERRERO Role and Position of Scientific Voices: Reported Speech in the Media Discourse Studies, May 1, 2003; 5(2): 147 - 173. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. C. Nisbet and B. V. Lewenstein Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999 Science Communication, June 1, 2002; 23(4): 359 - 391. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Goncalves The Importance of Being European: The Science and Politics of BSE in Portugal Science Technology Human Values, October 1, 2000; 25(4): 417 - 448. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Yearley Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2000; 9(2): 105 - 122. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Rowe and L. J. Frewer Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation Science Technology Human Values, January 1, 2000; 25(1): 3 - 29. [Abstract] [PDF]