NGOs and GMOs

References

• Allan, Stuart, Adam Barbara and Cynthia Carter, eds. 2000. Environmental Risks and the Media. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, Alison. 2000. Environmental Pressure Politics and the “Risk Society.” In S. Allan, A. Barbara, and C. Carter (eds.), Environmental Risks and the Media, 93–104. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, Kjell. 2008. Transparency and Accountability in Science and Politics. The Awareness Principle. Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Baskaran, Angathevar and Rebecca Boden. 2004. Science: A Controversial Commodity. Science, Technology & Society 9, 1, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Martin and Massimiano Bucchi, eds. 2007. Journalism, Science and Society. Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Martin and George Gaskell, eds. 2002. Biotechnology – The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Martin and Jane Gregory. 2007. From Journalism to Corporate Communication in Post-War Britain. In M. W. Bauer and M. Bucchi (eds.), Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, 33–52. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, Robert and David Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26, 1, 611–39.
   Google Scholar
• Böschen, Stefan, Karen Kastenhofer, Luitgard Marshall, et al. 2006. Scientific Cultures of Non-Knowledge in the Controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The Cases of Molecular Biology and Ecology, GAIA 15, 4, 294–301.
   Google Scholar
• Bucchi, Massimiano. 1996. When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science 5, 4, 375–94.
   Google Scholar
• Caulfield, Timothy. 2004. Biotechnology and the Popular Press: Hype and the Selling of Science. Trends in Biotechnology 22, 7, 337–39.
   Google Scholar
• Caulfield, Timothy. 2005. Popular Media, Biotechnology and the “Cycle of Hype.” Journal of Health Law and Policy 5, 213–33.
   Google Scholar
• David, Matthew. 2005. Science in Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, Steven. 1995. The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of
   Google Scholar
• Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. Science, Technology & Human Values 20, 4, 408–37.
   Google Scholar
• European Communities. 1998. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Official Journal of the European Communities 41 (L213), 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Ferree, Myra Marx, William Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht, eds. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse. Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fillieulle, Olivier and Anne Marijnen. 2004. Alliances for All and Europeanisation for a Few: Anti GMOs Mobilizations in France. Paper presented at the ECPR Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 1318 April 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, William. 1999. Beyond the Science-versus-Advocacy Distinction. Contemporary Sociology 28, 1, 23–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, William and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 1993. Movements and Media as Interacting Systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528, 1, 114–25.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, Anders. 1993. The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellsten, Ina. 2002. The Politics of Metaphor. Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the Media. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krimsky, Sheldon. 2005. From Asilomar to Industrial Biotechnology: Risks, Reductionism and Regulation. Science as Culture 14, 4, 309–23.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, Les. 1999. Britain’s Biotechnology Controversy: Elusive Science, Contested Expertise. New Genetics and Society 18, 1, 47–64.
   Google Scholar
• Lewenstein, Bruce. 1992. The Meaning of “Public Understanding of Science” in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1, 1, 45–68.
   Google Scholar
• Maeseele, Pieter and Dimitri Schuurman. 2008. Biotechnology and the Popular Press in Northern Belgium. A Case Study of Hegemonic Media Discourses and the Interpretive Struggle. Science Communication 29, 4, 435–71.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, Sabrina. 2007. Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation. Social Studies of Science 37, 4, 609–23.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, Gitte. 2006. Journalism and Science: How to Erode the Idea of Knowledge. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 3, 239–52.
   Google Scholar
• Mormont, Marc and Christine Dasnoy. 1995. Source Strategies and the Mediatization of Climate Change. Media, Culture & Society 17, 1, 49–65.
   Google Scholar
• Parajuli, Pramod. 1991. Power and Knowledge in Development Discourse: New Social Movements and the State in India. International Social Science Journal 43, 127, 173–90.
   Google Scholar
• Purdue, Derrick. 2000. Anti-Genetix: The Emergence of the Anti-GM Movement. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, Alexis and Pierre-Benoit Joly. 2000. France: Broadening Precautionary Expertise? Journal of Risk Research 3, 3, 247–54.
   Google Scholar
• Salleh, Anna. 2004. Journalism at Risk: Factors Influencing Journalistic Coverage of the GM Food and Crops Debate (Australia, 1999–2001) and Prospects for Critical Journalism. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Schenkelaars, Piet. 2005. Regulating GM Crops in the Netherlands: Precaution as Societal–Ethical Evaluation. Science and Public Policy 32, 4, 309–16.
   Google Scholar
• Schurman, Rachel. 2004. Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry Opportunities Structures and the Efficacy of the Anti-Biotech Movements in Western Europe. Social Problems 51, 2, 243–68.
   Google Scholar
• Sinemus, Kristina. 2007. Talking with the Public – Challenging the Public Scare. Biotechnology Journal 2, 9, 1047.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijck, José. 1998. Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Larebeke, N., C. Genetello, J. Schell et al. 1975. Acquisition of Tumour-Inducing Ability by Non-Oncogenic Agrobacteria as a Result of Plasmid Transfer. Nature 255, 742–3.
   Google Scholar
• VIB. 2003. A Flemish Government Initiative. <http://www.vib.be/VIB/EN/VIB+at+a+glance/History/>
   Google Scholar
• VIB. 2008. Information Sought. <http://www.vib.be/InfoEdu/EN/Educational+material/>
   Google Scholar
• Vilt. 2007. Genmodificatie enige vorm van zuivere landbouw. <http://www.vilt.be//gevilt/detail. phtml?id=1114>
   Google Scholar
• Vilt. 2008. Waar blijven ggo’s van de tweede generatie? <http://www.vilt.be/gevilt/detail. phtml?id=1130>
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, Wolfgang et al. 2006. The Monster in the Public Imagination. In G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (eds.), Genomics & Society: Legal, Ethical and Social Dimensions, 150–68. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Weingart, Peter. 2004. Science in a Political Environment. The Dynamics of Research, Risk Perception and Policy Making. EMBO Reports 5, S1, S52-S55.
   Google Scholar
• Wervel. 2009. Wat doen we. <http://www.wervel.be/wat-doen-we.html>
   Google Scholar
• West, Darrel. 2007. Biotechnology Policy Across National Boundaries. The Science-Industrial Complex. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Yearly, Steven. 2008. Environmental Action Groups and other NGOs as Communicators of Science. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 159–71. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar