Везде
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ROLE OF AN EXPERT IN A SITUATION OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGIESTAINTY WHEN INTRODUCING NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ROLE OF AN EXPERT IN A SITUATION OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGIESTAINTY WHEN INTRODUCING NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Annotation
PII
S0132-16250000616-3-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Valentina Polyakova 
Edition
Volume 306 Sotsialogicheski issledovania. Issue 10
Pages
100-108
Abstract
A wide range of problems that arise during the implementation of expertise in relation to new biotechnologies is presented: for their effectiveness and safety, compliance of the proposed methods of treatment, correction and improvement of people's condition with the General requirements for new types of therapy, as well as moral and ethical standards. An expert finds himself in a situation where his status and competence are questioned by a non-professional audience.
Keywords
expertise, biotechnologies, bioethics, control, dilettante, social interaction, deviation
Date of publication
05.10.2009
Number of purchasers
0
Views
544
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Kozhanov A. A. Sotsiologicheskie aspekty stanovleniya instituta ehkspertnoj otsenki nauchnogo znaniya // Novoe i staroe v teoreticheskoj sotsiologii / Pod red. Yu. N. Davydova. M.: IS RAN, 2006. Kn. 4. S. 137- 159.
 2. Natur B. Dajte mne laboratoriyu, i ya perevernu mir // Logos, 2002. N 5 - 6 (35). S. 211 - 242.
 3. Natur B. Novogo vremeni ne bylo. Ehsse po simmetrichnoj antropologii / Per. s fr. D. Ya. Kalugina. SPb.: Izd-vo Evropejskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge, 2006. (Pragmaticheskij povorot; Vyp. 1).
 4. Parsons T., Storer N. Nauchnaya distsiplina i differentsiatsiya nauki / Sotsiologiya nauki. Uchebnoe posobie. Sostavitel' Eh. Mirskij. URL=(http://courier.com.ru/pril.posobie/0.htm)
 5. Polozhenie o rossijskom komitete po bioehtike pri komissii RF po delam YuNESKO. URL=(http://www.bioethics.ru/rus/staff/)
 6. "Prekratit' prepodavanie fal'sifitsirovannoj nauki". Pis'mo chl. -korr. AN SSSR D. N. Nasonova N. S. Khruschevu. Maj 1954 g. URL=(http://bioparadigma.narod.ru/pisjmo02.htm)
 7. Tischenko P. D. Filosofskie osnovaniya gumanitarnoj ehkspertizy // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 2008. N3.
 8. Flek L. Vozniknovenie nauchnogo fakta: vvedenie v teoriyu stilya myshleniya i myslitel'nogo kollektiva. M.: Ideya-Press, Dom intellektual'noj knigi, 1999.
 9. Ehtika nauchnykh issledovanij // Meditsinskaya gazeta. 2001. 27 iyulya. (http://medgazeta.rusmedserv.com/2001/55/article_610.html)
 10. Yudin B. G. Meditsina i konstruirovanie cheloveka // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 2008. N 1.
 11. Christine R. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers // Public Understand. Sci. 17 (2008), pp. 309 - 327. URL=(http://pus.sagepub.eom/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/3090)
 12. Collins H.M., Evans R. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience // Social Studies of Science 32/2 (April 2002), pp. 235 - 296.
 13. Faulkner P. The epistemic Role of Trust // Trust, Reputation, and Security, Springer 2003, pp. 30 - 38.
 14. Fuller S. Social Epistemology. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988. 
 15. Hardwig J. Epistemic Dependence // The Journal of Philosophy. Volume LXXXII, No. 7, pp. 335 - 349.
 16. Kleinman D.L., Kloppenburg J.J. Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy / Sociological Forum. Vol. 6. No. 3 (Sep. 1991), pp. 427 - 447.
 17. Light D. W. Professionalism as a Countervailing Power // Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 16, 1991, pp. 499 - 506.
 18. Merton R.K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations / Ed. by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
 19. Nisbet M.C., Goidel R.K. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic survey research divide // Public Understand. Sci. 16 (2007), pp. 421 - 440. URL=(http://pus.sagepub.eom/cgi/content/abstract/16/4/421)
 20. Timmermans S., Kolker E.S. Evidence-Based Medicine and the Reconfiguration of Medical Knowledge // Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Vol. 45. 2004, pp. 177 - 193.
 21. Turner S. What is the Problem with Experts? // Social Studies of Science, 31/1 (February 2001). Pp. 123 - 149.
 22. Weingart P., Salzmann G., Wormann S. The social embedding of biomedicine: an analysis of German media debates 1995 - 2004 // Public Understand. Sci. 17 (2008), pp. 5381 - 396. URL=(http://pus.sagepub.eom/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/381)
 23. URL = (http://www.ktopridumal.ru/phone.html)
 24. URL = (http://medportal.ru/mednovosti/main/2008/12/08/stem/)
 25. URL = (http://www.oagb.ru/info.php?txt_id=17&nid=7082&page=0)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate