This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662507082891v1 18/4/437    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gerhards, J. Articles by Schäfer, M. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media

¹ Jürgen Gerhards is Professor of Sociology at the Free University in Berlin
² Dr. Mike S. Schäfer is a lecturer at the Department of Sociology at the Free University in Berlin

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

The public sphere and particularly the mass media have become increasingly important for the legitimation of science. Many publications on the issue explicitly or implicitly deal with the question of how science should be treated in the mass media, putting forward normative models of an ideal "scientific public sphere." In this article, we first present two ideal types of normative models identified in the literature: the "science-dominated scientific public sphere" and the "contextualized scientific public sphere." Whereas the first model calls for scientific dominance in mass media debates, the second model argues that science should be contextualized also with non-scientific actors and arguments. The second part of the article outlines how these two models translate into specific demands for mass media debates and proposes how to measure whether concrete cases of science coverage correspond with one of the normative models. We confront the two normative models with the example of media coverage on human genome research in Germany and in the United States in the third part of the article. Our findings show that the mass media debate on this issue is dominated by bio-scientists, affirmative positions, and scientific and medical frames in both countries. Hence, human genome research as an empirical case corresponds to the demands of the scientific dominance model, while failing to meet the demands for more contextualized mass media coverage.

Key Words: public sphere, media, discourse, public understanding of science, participation, biotechnology, human genome

First published on January 21, 2009, doi:10.1177/0963662507082891

Public Understanding of Science 2009;18:437.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009


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