Advances in Consumer Research. Gender, Culture and Consumer Behavior. Psychology Press, N. Converse Symposium. American Marketing Association. Griffin, A. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chapter in a Book Otnes, C. Sage Handbook of Consumer Culture pp. Mind, self and consumption: George Herbert Mead. Canonical Authors in Consumption Theory pp. Maclaran, P. Contemporary Consumer Culture Theory pp. Sherry, Jr. Fischer Ed. Regendering Sherlock: Applying a Butlerian Lens". Lowrey Ed. Routledge Handbook on Consumption London: Routledge. Hartman, J. New York: Springer Publications.
Otnes Ed. Tuncay Zayer, L. Otnes and Linda Tuncay-Zayer Ed. Climbing a Ladder or Chasing a Dream? Gender, Culture and Consumer Behavior pp. Are We There Yet? Consumer Culture Theory pp. London: Routledge. Consumer Tribes: Theory, Practice, and Prospects pp. Belk, John F. Exploring the Link between Masculinity and Consumption. Brick and Mortar Shopping in the 21st Century pp. Belk Ed. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing pp. Capturing Time. The Etiquette of Qualitative Research.
Costa Ed. Magical Romance: Commerical Rafting Adventures. Romancing the Market pp. ServiceScapes pp. Berlin: Macmillan. Gift Giving: An Interdisciplinary Anthology pp. Gift Giving: An Overview. Gender and Consumer Behavior pp.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter
Conference Proceeding Crosby, E. Consumption as a Strategy for Stigma Management". Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. Defining and differentiating marketplace tranquility. Klein, J. Crosby, E. The Consumption of Reading.
Kulkarni, A. European Advances in Consumer Research. Consumers' Negotiation of the Aesthetic Components of Christmas. Society for Consumer Psychology. Proceedings of the European Association for Consumer Research. Proceedings of the World Congress of Qualitative Inquiry. Brunel, F. Beyong the Stereotypes of Male Shopping Behavior. Transformational Claims in Women's Advertisements. Magic in the Marketing Age. Illuminations Conference. Proceedings of the Gender and Consumer Behavior Conference. American Academy of Advertising Conference.
Proceedings of the Popular Culture Association Conference. American Marketing Association Winter Conference. Presentation Otnes, C. Understanding Marketplace Tranquility.
Cass Business School Seminar. What is Going on Here? University of Sydney Qualitative Workshop. Richard III is alive and well The Controversial Dead: A Colloquium. Ilhan, B. Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference. European Association for Consumer Research Conference. Consumer Culture Theory. Contemporary Authenticity Conference. Association for Consumer Research European Conference. Oh Baby! Reconciling "Artificial" Means and Authentic Parenthood.
Consumer Culture Theory Conference. University of Illinois. Father of the Bride Champaign-Urbana Social Science Club. Shopping with Consumers in Subsistence Marketplaces. Subsistence Marketing Conference. Marketing Communications and Branding. Marketing Fundamentals. Gender, Marketing, and Consumer Behavior Conference. In each application, as a human matured, the altered DNA would be copied into every cell, and passed on to their progeny. Not surprisingly, public opinion surveys reveal widespread public reservations about the technology and a firm belief that scientists should consult the public before applying gene-editing techniques to humans.
Given the many important considerations that gene editing raises, in the U. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended that scientists invest in ongoing input from the public regarding the benefits and risks of human genome editing, and that more research be conducted to better understand how to facilitate such a process.
But to lead a national and global conversation about gene editing, scientists will need help not only from their colleagues in the humanities, social sciences, and creative arts, but also from journalists and philanthropists.
Informed public discussion about gene editing is not possible without high-quality, sustained reporting from journalists with deep knowledge of the subject. And new initiatives designed to understand public attitudes, to facilitate public dialogue, and to report on the complexities of gene editing will not be possible without financial support from philanthropists and their foundations. To do so, individuals actively draw on their religious and cultural values, familiar narratives from popular culture, and similarities to past debates.
For example, in the same Pew survey, when asked about the moral acceptability of gene-editing techniques intended to give healthy babies a reduced risk of disease, only 28 percent of Americans consider the application acceptable, compared with 30 percent who say it is unacceptable and 40 percent who are not sure. Notably, among the one-third of Americans who can be classified as highly religious, only 15 percent consider such applications morally acceptable see the figure above.
When asked separately if such an application meddled with nature and crossed a line that should not be crossed, 64 percent of highly religious Americans agreed with the statement. For many religious Americans, gene editing is likely closely associated with past debates over embryonic stem cell research and fetal tissue research. In these controversies, Christian leaders mobilized opposition to government funding by framing research as a violation of religious teachings. Embryos are considered to be divinely created human beings. When scientists destroy or alter human embryos, they take on the role of God, violating divine will.
Therefore, traditional Christians believe that embryo research is morally wrong and that if it is funded by the government using tax revenues, such funding makes all Americans complicit in destroying human life. But as various survey findings indicate, it is not just strongly religious Americans who have moral reservations about gene editing. Even among nonreligious Americans, 17 percent say that gene editing to give babies a much reduced risk of disease is morally unacceptable, and 37 percent say they are unsure.ulinmidumum.cf/beso-de-la-lechuza-triloga-lechuza-negra-n-2/gallinero-por-asustadocuadrado.pdf
Referencing for students: RMIT Harvard style
In a follow-up question, more than one-quarter of nonreligious respondents say they oppose gene editing to improve the health of a baby because it would be meddling with nature and cross a line that should not be crossed. In this case, when asked about changing the genes of unborn babies to reduce their risk of developing certain serious diseases, 65 percent of Americans said that such an application should be illegal.
More than 80 percent said the same when asked about gene editing to improve intelligence or physical traits. The Yuck Factor is a relatively intuitive response, a reaction formed below the level of conscious deliberation, often in the absence of substantive information. What explains the reservations voiced by both religious and nonreligious Americans?
These traditions, as political theorist Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University described in his book Our Post Human Future , emphasize that human life has a higher moral place than the rest of the natural world. Therefore, according to these philosophies, even at its earliest stages of development, human life should always be treated with a sacred respect. Such teachings have shaped Western culture to the extent that their principles are passed on even to those who have never set foot in a church.
The Yuck Factor is therefore a relatively intuitive response, a reaction formed below the level of conscious deliberation on the part of an individual, often in the absence of substantive information. When asked about emerging gene-editing techniques that would involve altering human embryos or engineering desired traits, most individuals probably have difficulty articulating why they might believe it to be morally questionable; they just know it when they feel it.
Although scientists hold a responsibility to engage the public about the social implications of gene editing, informed public dialogue ultimately depends heavily on journalists and their news organizations. Quality science reporting is essential to understanding how and why gene-editing research is being conducted, including the connections between new advances and ongoing debates over funding, governance, regulation, ethics, accessibility, uncertainty, and patent rights.
These news organizations provide the information, frames of reference, and narratives that scientists, journalists, funders, policy makers, and societal leaders frequently draw upon to set policy, make decisions, or communicate with various segments of the public who trust their advice. Yet for the past two decades, the news media have faced crippling economic and technological disruptions that have forced cutbacks in the amount of reporting on complex science topics such as gene editing.
As University of Wisconsin-Madison communication scholar Dietram Scheufele has documented, due to layoffs there are also far fewer veteran journalists on staff who can draw on decades of experience to provide their readers critical context. Industry practices within journalism have also changed. In a business model dependent on Facebook and Google to generate traffic and advertising revenue, former New Republic editor Franklin Foer warns that journalists are being told by their editors to actively seek out trending topics that are likely to catch on or go viral, rather than to rely on their news judgment to decide what are the most important stories to tell readers.
MLA Works Cited Page: Books // Purdue Writing Lab
As a consequence, coverage of gene editing loses out to the latest sensational cultural event or breaking political scandal. Now is the time, therefore, for scientists and philanthropists to help journalists and news organizations to correct for these pressures and biases. They can do so by sponsoring workshops where a diversity of experts and stakeholders gather to discuss with journalists and editors the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of gene editing, making it easier for journalists to cover gene editing accurately and on a regular basis.
Philanthropists, universities, and research institutions can also provide fellowships and other sources of financial support that enable journalists to spend the weeks and months required to substantively report on the subject. But journalists are not the only professionals who are needed to write compellingly about the scientific and social implications of gene editing. Scientists, ethicists, and social scientists can also contribute commentaries and articles to the popular press, offering independent insights and context.
In one initiative to help facilitate such articles, the Kavli Foundation is partnering with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science and a number of science magazines and online publications including American Scientist to train scientists to apply the techniques and standards of journalism in writing about complex topics such as gene editing. Yet even as quality journalism provides the main architecture around which informed debate about gene editing will take place, the scientific community, along with universities, philanthropies, and research institutions, must also help create opportunities for direct public participation in dialogue and deliberation.
Such an effort starts with the sponsorship of carefully conducted social-science research that assesses public discourse about gene editing, the sources of information and arguments that are shaping debate, and the factors that are influencing public attitudes. In turn, this research should inform the design and evaluation of a variety of dialogue-based communication initiatives organized by scientific organizations, government agencies, and universities.
First, in these initiatives, communication is defined as an iterative back-and-forth process between various segments of the public, experts, and decision-makers. Second, rather than being top-down and controlled by scientists and their partners, societal leaders and the public are invited to be active participants in defining what is discussed, sharing their own knowledge and perspectives. These include but are not limited to church leaders and congregations, racial or ethnic groups, parents and patient advocates, and political identity groups such as liberals or conservatives.
Among the most important types of organized dialogue initiatives are smaller, more intimate events that bring together scientists with other societal leaders to facilitate the sharing of perspectives, and the forging of relationships. In one leading example, the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion DoSER at the American Association for the Advancement of Science has organized workshops that convene scientists and clergy to discuss topics of mutual concern and possible disagreement such as embryonic stem cell research.
To inform the discussion, focus groups were conducted in advance of the events, and the meetings were professionally facilitated. Scientists and clergy participating in the meetings indicated that the sessions helped break down stereotypes about each other, facilitating learning and mutual respect.
In a related initiative, DoSER has worked with seminary schools and synagogues to develop curricula and resources that aid clergy in leading more constructive conversations about complex scientific topics with their congregations. As these examples suggest, it is important to remember that religion is more than just a belief system that shapes how people understand gene editing. Churches are communication contexts where discussions can at times be framed in strongly moral terms by congregational leaders, reinforced by conversations that churchgoers have with others, and shaped by information provided directly when at church.
For these reasons, on a topic such as gene editing, churches often serve as powerful networks of civic recruitment where congregants receive requests to voice their opinion to elected officials. During the debate over embryonic stem cell research, for example, among the strongest predictors of whether individuals had become involved politically on the issue was whether they had discussed or received information about the topic at church. In sum, when it comes to public dialogue about gene editing, scientists can either cede communication at churches to religious leaders or become active partners in facilitating and enriching church-based discussions.
Yet to promote broader public engagement across both religious and nonreligious segments of the public, the scientific community can also benefit by partnering with experts specializing in the humanities, philosophy, and the creative arts. Scholars in the humanities and philosophy draw on literature, religious traditions, and ethical frameworks to help the public consider what is good, what is right, and what is of value about a complex topic such as gene editing.
Integrated into public dialogue initiatives, their work can motivate different forms of learning, sponsor critical reflection and deliberation, and produce thought-provoking visions of the future. In a past example that serves as a prototype for such initiatives, faculty at the University of Alberta in Canada hosted workshops in that facilitated discussions about the social implications of human genetic engineering among visual artists, scientists, bioethicists, and social scientists. Informed by their conversations together, the artists were commissioned to produce visual works reflecting on the themes discussed, while the other participants were asked to write short essays.
As part of the exhibit tour, forums were held at museum venues, generating local news coverage of the themes expressed. The essays along with the artistic works were published as part of a book and catalog sold at art museums, bookstores, and online. A series of workshops at the University of Alberta, which brought together scientists, artists, and ethicists to discuss the social implications of human genetic engineering, developed into a touring exhibit of visual works on this theme.
Apart from artistic exhibits, classic works of literature and films can also serve a similar function in stimulating public dialogue. For example, the film Gattaca is often used in college classrooms to stimulate student discussion of the social implications of human engineering.