This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lieberman, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

What the Controversies Over the Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Tell Us About the Debates Between Objectivists and Social Constructionists

University of Pittsburgh

Some social analyses of scientific knowledge are based on objectivist assumptions, whereas others assume that scientific knowledge is socially constructed. The condemna tion of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by the antismoking movement affects the life of virtually every American and uncounted millions of others throughout the world. Investigators who argue that ETS causes lung cancer claim the influence, objectivity, and authority of scientific mquiry, whereas critics of the results of the investigations argue that the conclusion that ETS causes lung cancer is unwarranted. The present study uses this fascinating and important sociotechnical controversy to shed light on the debate between objectivists and social constructionists and reaches the conclusion that the condemnation of ETS is a deliberate social construction of an elite social movement that mixes advocacy with alleged objective inquiry. The tobacco industry has moved the dispute into the federal courts, and so the "truth" of the matter will be decided ultimately not by technical debate but by judicial rulings and political processes.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. PERLOFF Impediments in the Production and Consumption of Science and Technical Communication Science Communication, September 1, 1998; 20(1): 81 - 90. [Abstract]