1. By-Covid
  2. All content
  3. Cessda
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/62846
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorCassidy, A., Imperial College London, Department of Humanities, Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicineen
dc.date0001-01-01T00:00:00Zen
dc.identifier7187-
dc.identifier10.5255/UKDA-SN-7187-5-
dc.identifierhttp://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7187-5-
dc.identifier.urihttps://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/62846*
dc.description<P>Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.</P>This research is a case study on the UK public controversy over transmission of bovine TN (bTB) between domestic cattle and wild badgers; and whether badgers should be culled to manage the disease. This work involved integrated analysis of media, cultural sources and interview data to understand how and why the science of bTB has become publicly contested, and how this has shaped policy formation around the issue. The research employed a mixed-methodology design, employing a combination of quantitative and qualitative media analysis; analysis of cultural and visual sources and field interviews with key actors in the conflict on badger/bTB, nine of these interviews are available here.en
dc.description<B>Main Topics</B>:<BR>Key findings of the research were:<br> <br> - Framings of badgers as either dangerous, disruptive vermin or as a charismatic British wildlife species and innocent 'scapegoat' have played a central role, acting as a rhetorical resource for actors to communicate their arguments for and against badger culling. These framings long predate the current controversy, suggesting that public debates about bTB are also about human/badger relations.<br> <br> - Media coverage of the badger/bTB issue has been written primarily by agricultural and environmental journalists, and correspondingly framed as such: bTB as an agricultural problem versus the potential environmental risks of badger culling. Further analysis has underlined the deeply political nature of the controversy, and how the transfer of public 'responsibility' for the issue between policy, science, 'the public' and politics has contributed to further polarisation of the debate.<br> <br> - The RBCT field trial was commissioned in the wake of a philosophy of 'evidence based policy', which established public expectations of the promise of science for resolving the problem. However, the contingencies of field science meant that the RBCT was unlikely to provide the certain evidence expected to direct bTB policy. This explains how it has been possible for the same 'sound science' to be cited in support of directly opposing bTB policy options.<br> <br> <br>en
dc.languageen-
dc.subjectZOOPATHOLOGYen
dc.subjectVETERINARY MEDICINEen
dc.subjectAGRICULTUREen
dc.subjectANIMAL HUSBANDRYen
dc.subjectANIMAL RIGHTSen
dc.subjectCATTLEen
dc.subjectWILD ANIMALSen
dc.subjectENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONen
dc.subjectECOLOGYen
dc.subjectZOOLOGYen
dc.subject2008-2011en
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen
dc.titleBadger-Bovine Tuberculosis Controversy: Expertise and Experience in Animal Disease Research, 2008-2011en
dc.typeDataseten
dc.coverageUnited Kingdomen
Appears in Collections:Cessda

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.