Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Public understanding of science

Public understanding of science Books are neglected in discussions of university–industry dominance of laboratory studies, positioning his relations. book as more contextual than most work in the field. Given the many different subjects considered in More detailed criticisms of laboratory studies and this book, one could read Impure Cultures quite se- the sociology of scientific knowledge exist, but lectively. Policy makers and policy scholars could Kleinman’s review is both concise and accessible to focus on the intellectual property chapter and those not intimately familiar with the literature. Kleinman’s policy recommendations. Science and Impure Cultures is thorough in its analysis, but technology studies (STS) scholars could jump to his has its limitations. A slender book (less than 180 criticism of the field’s overemphasis on micro-level pages, minus the notes and index), it skims through studies and agency. Ethnographers could review the several topics in a way that can be dissatisfying. The material involving Handelsman’s lab. book suffers from the same emphasis on biology Readers taking a selective approach will miss out shared by much of the literature reviewed. Since on an assertive and skillfully integrative work. Kleinman conducted his ethnography in a biology While it does sacrifice some depth in each area of lab, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Science and Public Policy Oxford University Press

Public understanding of science

Rip, Arie
Science and Public Policy , Volume 32 (5) – Oct 1, 2005
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/public-understanding-of-science-91epCWp0zR

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
ISSN
0302-3427
eISSN
1471-5430
DOI
10.1093/spp/32.5.408
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Books are neglected in discussions of university–industry dominance of laboratory studies, positioning his relations. book as more contextual than most work in the field. Given the many different subjects considered in More detailed criticisms of laboratory studies and this book, one could read Impure Cultures quite se- the sociology of scientific knowledge exist, but lectively. Policy makers and policy scholars could Kleinman’s review is both concise and accessible to focus on the intellectual property chapter and those not intimately familiar with the literature. Kleinman’s policy recommendations. Science and Impure Cultures is thorough in its analysis, but technology studies (STS) scholars could jump to his has its limitations. A slender book (less than 180 criticism of the field’s overemphasis on micro-level pages, minus the notes and index), it skims through studies and agency. Ethnographers could review the several topics in a way that can be dissatisfying. The material involving Handelsman’s lab. book suffers from the same emphasis on biology Readers taking a selective approach will miss out shared by much of the literature reviewed. Since on an assertive and skillfully integrative work. Kleinman conducted his ethnography in a biology While it does sacrifice some depth in each area of lab,

Journal

Science and Public Policy – Oxford University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.