No abstract

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the 'first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology' (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p.313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning). In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over 'playing God' for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.

Acknowledgments:

No abstract

We propose representation justice as a theoretical lens for socio-hydrology and water governance studies. An exploratory survey of 496 water sector employees in the United States revealed that self-identifying females felt more strongly discriminated against due to their gender and other social factors, compared to self-identifying males. Responses unveiled how macro-and microaggressions impede career pathways to leadership positions and, therefore, representation. We identify ways in which socio-hydrology can benefit from a representation justice lens by considering the following: (1) how power and politics shape the composition of the water sector and decision-making processes; (2) how available quantitative data do not account for lived experiences of individuals in the water sector; and (3) how intersectionality cannot easily be accounted for in current socio-hydrological models. We offer a representation justice research and water management agenda that goes beyond quota filling to include meaningful engagement with diverse groups, lenses, and knowledge.