Natural and unnatural: activists' representations of animal biotechnology

References

• AEBC, 2002. Animals and Biotechnology. London: AEBC; 2002, available at < http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report.pdf> (accessed March 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Agamben, G., 2002. L'Ouvert: De l'Homme et de l'Animal. Paris: Rivages; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Allansdottir, A., Jovchelovitch, S., and Stathopoulou, A., 1993. Social representations: the versatility of a concept, Papers on Social Representations 3 (2) (1993), available at < http://www.psr.jku.at/PSR1993/2_1993Alla1.pdf> (accessed March 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Baratay, E., 2003. Et l'Homme créa l'Animal. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, M., 2000. "Classical content analysis: a review". In: Bauer, M., and Gaskell, G., eds. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage; 2000. pp. 131–51.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., et al., 1994. European public perception of science, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (2) (1994), pp. 163–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M., 1988. Social representations, objectification and anchoring: a rhetorical analysis, Social Behaviour 3 (1988), pp. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bloor, M., et al., 2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd Group, 1999. The Genetic engineering: animal welfare and ethics, A discussionpaper from the Boyd Group (1999), available at < http://www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/genmod.htm> (accessed March 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Breakwell, G., 2002. Research in the UK on Public Attitudes to Biotechnology with Animals. London: AEBC; 2002, availablat at < http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report.pdf> (accessed March 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Brown, N., 1999a. Debates in xenotransplantation: on the consequences of contradiction, New Genetics and Society 18 (2) (1999a), pp. 181–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, N., 1999b. Xenotransplantation: normalizing disgust, Science as Culture 8 (2) (1999b), pp. 327–55.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, N., and Michael, M., 2001. Switching between science and culture in transpecies transplantation, Science, Technology and Human Values 26 (1) (2001), pp. 3–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buston, K., 1997. NUD*IST in action: its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people, Sociological Research Online 2 (3) (1997), available at < http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/6.html> (accessed 15 July 2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byford, J., 2002. Anchoring and abjectifying ‘neocortical warfare’: re-presentation of a biological metaphor in Serbian conspiracy literature, Papers on Social Representations 11 (3) (2002), available at < http://www.swp.uni.linz.ac.at/psr.htm> (accessed August 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Descola, P., 1996. "Constructing natures: symbolic ecology and social practice". In: Descola, P., and Palsson, G., eds. Nature and Society. London/New York: Routledge; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Durant, J., Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1992. Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science, Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992), pp. 174–82.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J., 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J., 2002. Taking public understanding seriously, New Genetics and Society 21 (3) (2002), pp. 315–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EORG, 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002), available at < http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_180_en.pdf> (accessed May 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Evans, G., and Durant, J., 1995. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science 4 (1995), pp. 57–74.
   Google Scholar
• Francione, G. L., 1998. "Animal rights and new welfarism". In: Bekoff, M., and Meaney, C. A., eds. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport: Greenwood Press; 1998. p. 45.
   Google Scholar
• Galvin, S., and Herzog, H. A., 1992. Ethical ideology, animal activism and attitudes toward the treatment of animals, Ethics and Behavior 2 (1992), pp. 141–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaskell, G., et al., 2000. Biotechnology in the European public, Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), pp. 935–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genewatch, , 2002. Genetically modified and cloned animals. All in a good cause?, (2002), Available at < http://www.genewatch.org/GManimals/Reports/GManimalsRept.pdf> (accessed March 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Hampel, J., Pfenning, U., and Peter, H., 2000. Attitudes towards genetic engineering, New Genetics and Society 19 (3) (2000), pp. 233–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harré, R., 1984. Some reflections on the concept of social representations, Social Research 51 (1984), pp. 927–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog, H. A., 1993. The movement is my life: the psychology of animal rights activism, Journal of Social Issues 49 (1993), pp. 103–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horigan, S., 1988. Nature and Culture in Western Discourses. London: Routledge; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Jahoda, G., 1988. Critical notes and reflections on ‘social representations’, European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (3) (1988), pp. 195–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamison, W., and Lunch, W., 1992. The rights of animals, science policy and political activism, Science, Technology and Human Values 17 (1992), pp. 438–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasper, J. M., and Poulsen, J. D., 1995. Recruiting strangers and friends: moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests, Social Problems 42 (1995), pp. 493–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J., 1994. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants, Sociology of Health 16 (1) (1994), pp. 103–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knodel, J., 1993. "The design and analysis of focus group studies: a practical approach". In: Morgan, D., ed. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. London: Sage; 1993. pp. 35–50.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology, . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., 2000. Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A, 2000. Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research, . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kruse, C., 1999. Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights, Society and Animals 7 (3) (1999), available at < http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa7.3/kruse.shtml> (accessed July 2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., 2001. Animal futures. Public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals and biotechnology in contemporary Britain, Report by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public policy for the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission (2001), available at < http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/macnaghten_animals_futures.pdf> (accessed March 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Martinelli, D., 2002. How Musical is a Whale? Towards a Theory of Zoömusicology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K., 1987. The focussed interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuities, Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (4) (1987), pp. 550–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael, M., 2001. Technoscientific bespoking: animals, publics and the new genetics, New Genetics and Society 20 (3) (2001), pp. 205–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael, M., and Brown, N., 2004. The meat of the matter: grasping and judging xenotransplantation, Public Understanding of Science 13 (2004), pp. 379–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgley, M., 1983. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L., 1997. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., 1973. "Foreword". In: Herzlich, C., ed. Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press; 1973.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., 1984. "The phenomenon of social representations". In: Farr, J., and Moscovici, S., eds. Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. pp. 3–69.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., 1988. Notes towards a description of social representations, European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (1988), pp. 211–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D., and Dingwall, R., 1999. The influence of popular cultural imagery on public attitudes towards cloning, Sociological Research Online 4 (3) (1999), available at < http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/3/nerlich.html> (accessed March 2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nibert, D., 1994. Animal rights and human social issues, Society and Animals 2 (1994), pp. 115–24, available at < http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa2.2/nibert.html> (accessed 10 January 2003).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., and Dunham, C. C., 1996. Gender, gender ideology, and animal rights advocacy, Gender and Society 10 (1996), pp. 464–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfister, H.-R., Böhm, G., and Jungermann, H., 2000. The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: knowledge and evaluations, New Genetics and Society 19 (2000), pp. 295–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plous, S., 1991. An attitude survey of animal rights activists, Psychological Science 2 (1991), pp. 194–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and Billig, M., 1992. Re-presenting representations, Ongoing Production on Social Representations 1 (1992), pp. 15–20.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Räty, H., and Snellman, L., 1992. Making the unfamiliar familiar—some notes on the criticism of the theory of social representations, Papers on Social Representations 1 (1) (1992), pp. 3–14, available at < http://www.psr.jku.at/psrindex.htm> (accessed March 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Regan, T., 1988. The Case for Animal Rights. London: Routledge; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, T. J., and Richards, L., 1994. "Using computers in qualitative analysis". In: Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y., eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Berkeley, CA: Sage; 1994. pp. 445–62.
   Google Scholar
• Rivera, A., 2000. Homo Sapiens e Mucca Pazza Homo Sapiens and Mad Cow. Bari: Dedalo; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Rollin, B., 1995. The Frankenstein Syndrome. Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Rouquette, M.-L., and Flament, C., 2003. Anatomie des Idées Ordinaries Anatomy of Everyday Ideas. Paris: A. Colin; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal Society, 2001. The Use of Genetically Modified Animals. London: The Royal Society; 2001, available at < http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-139.pdf> (accessed March 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, K., 1994. The caring sleuth: portrait of an animal rights activist, Society and Animals 2 (2) (1994), available at < http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa2.2/shapiro.html> (accessed 10 January 2003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, E., Corning, A., and Lamias, M., 1998. The polls - trends: genetic testing, engineering, and therapy; awareness and attitudes, Public Opinion Quarterly 62 (1998), pp. 633–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, P., 1977. Animal Liberation. London: Granada; 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, D. W., and Shamdasani, P. N., 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. London: Sage; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Straughan, R., 2000. Ethics, Morality and Animal Biotechnology. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (2000), available at < http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/tools/download/ethics_animal_biotech/ethics_animal_biotech.pdf > (accessed March 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland, A., and Nash, J. E., 1994. Animal rights as a new environmental cosmology, Qualitative Sociology 17 (2) (1994), pp. 171–86.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T., 1991. Racism and the Press. London: Routledge; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., 1994. Fields of research and socio-genesis of social representations: a discussion of criteria and diagnosis, Social Science Information 33 (2) (1994), pp. 199–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., and Kronberger, N., 2001. "Killer tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with biotechnology". In: Deaux, K., and Philogene, G., eds. Representations of the Social— Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell; 2001. pp. 131–55.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., and Kronberger, N., 2002a. "Discours et appropriation symbolique de la biotechnologie [Discourse and symbolic coping with biotechnology]". In: Garnier, C., and Rouquette, M.-L., eds. Les Formes de la Pensée Sociale. Paris: Press Universitaires de France; 2002a.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., and Kronberger, N., 2002b. "Mémoires des mythes vecus—représentations de la technologie génétique [Memories of myths we live with—representations of genetic engineering]". In: Laurens, St., and Roussiau, N., eds. La Mémoire Sociale: Représentations et Identité Sociales. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes; 2002b, available at < http://www.swp.uni-linz.ac.at/content2/staff/wagner/material_ww/WagnerKronberger2002.pdf> (accessed March 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., Elejabarrieta, F., and Lahnsteiner, I., 1995. How the sperm dominates the ovum: objectification by metaphor in the social representation of reproduction, European Journal of Social Psychology 25 (1995), pp. 671–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., and Seifert, F., 2002. Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse, British Journal of Social Psychology 41 (2002), pp. 323–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar