FACTORS OF CONSTRUCTING EVERYDAY REPRESENTATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE: THE CASE OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
https://doi.org/ 10.18384/2310-7235-2016-1-25-34
Abstract
The article analyzes the main trends in the media discourse on assisted reproductive technologies. Several types of interpreting the problems of ethical acceptability of assisted reproductive technologies in the field of sociology and demography, the Orthodox religion, medicine and journalism are found. Semantic methods of presenting information, which play an important role in constructing everyday representations of assisted reproductive technologies, are revealed. The content of social consciousness connected with the new reproductive technologies is shown as controversial and ambiguious.
About the Author
Tatiana P. Emelyanova
Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Science
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Исупова О.Г. Роды как ценность в интернет-дискурсе субфертильных женщин о донорстве яйцеклеток и суррогатном материнстве // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2014. Т. 12. № 3. С. 381-397.
2. Основы социальной концепции Русской православной церкви. XII. Проблемы биоэтики. п. 4. 2000. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html (дата обращения: 10.12.2015)
3. Русанова Н.Е. Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии в России: история, проблемы, демографические перспективы // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2013. № 1. С. 69-86
4. Ткач О. Наполовину родные? Проблематизация родства и семьи в газетных публикациях о вспомогательных репродуктивных технологиях // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2013. №11 (1). С. 50-68
5. Einsiedel E., Allansdottir A., Allum N., Bauer M., Berthomier A., Chatjouli A., et al. Brave new sheep - the clone named dolly. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology - the Making of a Global Controversy. 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Joffe, H., & Haarhof, G. Representations of far-flung illnesses: The case of Ebola in Britain // Social Science and Medicine. 2002. № 54, 955-969.
7. Joffe, H., & Lee, N. Y. L. Social Representation of a Food Risk: The Hong Kong Avian Bird Flu Epidemic. Journal of Health Psychology, 2004. № 9(4), 517-533.
8. Kronberger, N., Dahinden, U., Allansdottir, A., Seger, N., Pfenning, U., Gaskell, G., et al. „The train departed without us“ - Public perceptions of biotechnology in ten European countries. Notizie di Politeia. 2001. № 17, 26-36.
9. Moloney G., Walker I. Messiahs, Pariahs, and Donors: The Development of Social Representations of Organ Transplants // Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2000. # 30 (2). P. 203-227.
10. Moscovici S. La psychanalyse son image et son public. Paris: PUF, 1976. 506 p.
11. Wagner W. Social representations and beyond: Brute facts, symbolic coping and domesticated worlds // Culture and psychology. 1998. V. 3 (4). P. 297-329.
12. Wagner W. Vernacular Science Knowledge: Its Role in Everyday Life Communication // Public Understanding of Science, № 16/1, January 2007. P. 7-22.
13. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Berg, S., & Torgersen, H. The monster in public perception. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Genomics: Ethical, Legal and Social Dimensions. London: Earthscan. 2006. P. 150-168.
Review
Views:
55
Email this article 