Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

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 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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edmond, G.
Right arrow Articles by Mercer, 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?

Creating (public) science in the Noah's Ark case

Gary Edmond

Faculty of Law, University of Adeliade, 5005, Australia

David Mercer

Science and Technology Studies Program at the University of Wollongong, david_mercer{at}uow.edu.au

This paper explores how a recent "Creation Science" case from the Australian Federal Courts was used by an informal alliance of science popularizers (science litigant Ian Plimer, science journalists, and the Australian Skeptics) as a vehicle for the celebratory "boundary working" of "public science," despite the case's contingent and messy processes and unfavourable legal outcome. This "boundary working" was pursued mainly through the mass media, in which a narrow range of narrative strategies involving well-worn metaphors and clichés conforming to the ideology of science dominated the case's coverage. The dominance of these narratives resulted in a marginalized coverage of the legal/policy ramifications of the case, particularly the role of the courts in preserving/limiting freedom of speech. We will conclude our analysis by identifying some similarities between the Ark case and the Science Wars, nothing that both instances show how the "boundary working" of "public science" can be pursued in a cultural space located at a significant distance from contexts where more tangible science policies are being negotiated.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, 317-343 (1999)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/304
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
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
A. Carvalho
Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 223 - 243.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Studies of ScienceHome page
R. Slayton
Discursive Choices: Boycotting Star Wars Between Science and Politics
Social Studies of Science, February 1, 2007; 37(1): 27 - 66.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Studies of ScienceHome page
G. Edmond and D. Mercer
Anti-social Epistemologies
Social Studies of Science, December 1, 2006; 36(6): 843 - 853.
[PDF]