1] Raichvarg, D. and Jacques, J. (1991). “Savants et Ignorants. Une Histoire de la Vulgarisation des Sciences”, Paris: Seuil.
[2] Pais, A. (1982). “Subtle is the Lord...: the Science and Life of Albert Einstein”, New York: Oxford University Press. OF D EFICITS, D EVIATIONS AND DIALOGU ES 75.
[3] Hansen, A. (1992). “Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press”, Public Understanding of Science, 3: 111–34.
[4] Peters, H. P. (1995). “The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures”, Media Culture & Society, 17: 31–48.
[5] Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2002). “Biotech remains unloved by the more informed”, Nature, 416: 261.
[6] Wynne, B. (1989). “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information”, Environment Magazine, 31: pp. 10–39.
[7] —— (1995). “Public understanding of science”, in Jasanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: pp. 361–89.
[8] Dunwoody, S. and Scott, B. (1982). “Scientists as mass media sources”, Journalism Quarterly, pp. 59: 52–9.
[9] Bucchi, M. and Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). “Big science, little news: science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997”, Public Understanding of Science, 12: pp. 7–24.
[10] Phillips, D. M. (1991). “Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community”, New England Journal of Medicine, 11 Oct: 1180–3.
[11] Goodell, R. (1977). “The Visible Scientists, Boston”, MA: Little Brown.
[12] Cloıˆtre, M. and Shinn, T. (1985). “Expository practice: social, cognitive and epistemological linkages”, in Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. (eds) Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularization, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 31–60.
[13] Hilgartner, S. (1990). “The dominant view of popularization”, Social Studies of Science, 20: pp. 519–39.
[14] Fleck, L. (1935). “Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftliche Tatsache (Eng. tr. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact”, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
[15] Collins, H. M. (1987). “Certainty and the public understanding of science: science on television”, Social Studies of Science, 17: 689–713.
[16] Whitley, R. (1985). “Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers”, in Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. (eds), Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularization, Dordrecht: Reidel, , pp. 3–28.
[17] Balmer, B. (1990). “Scientism, science and scientists”, research paper, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.
[18] Jacobi, D. (1987). “Textes et Images de la Vulgarisation Scientifique”, Bern: Peter Lang.
[19] Gregory, J and Miller, S. (1998). “Science in Public. Communication, Culture, and Credibility”, London: Plenum.
[20] Clemens, E. (1994). “The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate”, in Glen, W. (ed.) The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[21] —— (1997). “The public science of Louis Pasteur: the experiment on anthrax vaccine in the popular press of the time”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19: pp. 181–209.
[22] Grundmann, R. and Cavaille´, J. P. (2000). “Simplicity in science and its publics”, Science as Culture, 9: pp. 353–89.
[23] Macdonald, S. and Silverstone, R. (1992). “Science on display: the representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibition”, Public Understanding of Science, 1: pp. 69–87.
[24] Grmek, M. D. (1989). Histoire du SIDA, Paris, Payot.
[25] Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[26] Cooter, R. and Pumfrey, S. (1994). “Science in popular culture”, History of Science, 32: pp. 237–67.
[27] Michael, M. (2002) ‘Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: heterogeneity and the public understanding of science’, Science Technology & Human Values, 27: 357–78.
[28] Lewenstein, B. (1995a). “Science and the media”, in Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 343–59.
[29] —— (1995b). “From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga”, Social Studies of Science, 25: 403–36.
[30] Bucchi, M. (1996). “When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication”, Public Understanding of Science, 5: 375–94.
[31] —— (1998). “Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication”, London and New York: Routledge.
[32] Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps. Science, Genetics and Popular Culture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[33] Zola, E. (1871). La Fortune des Rougon (edn 1981, Flammarion, Paris).
[34] Lewontin, R. (1996). “In the blood”, New York Review of Books, 23 May: pp. 31–2.
[35] Brown, P. and Mikkelsen, E. (1990). “No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action, Berkeley”, CA: University of California Press.
[36] Callon, M. (1999). “The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge”, Science, Technology & Society, 4: 81–94.
[37] Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2001). “Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la de´mocratie technique”, Paris: Seuil.
[38] Trench, B. (2006). “Science communication and citizen science: how dead is the deficit model?” paper presented at PCST9 Conference, Seoul, 17–19 May 2006.
[39] Stilgoe, J., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2005). “The Public Value of Science”, London: Demos.
[40] Bauer, M. and Gregory, J. (2007). “From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain”, in Bucchi, M. and Bauer, M. (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, London: Routledge: pp. 33–52.
[41] Mazur, A. (1981). “Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies”, Journal of Communication, 31: pp. 106–15.
[42] Neresini, F. (2000) ‘And man descended from the sheep: the public debate on cloning in the Italian press’, Public Understanding of Science, 9: 359–82.
[43] Andersen, S. and Burns, T. (1996). “The European Union and the erosion of parliamentary democracy: a study of post-parliamentary governance, in Andersen” S. and Eliassen, K. A. (eds) European Union – How Democratic is It? London: Sage, pp. 227–51.
[44] Levidow, L. and Marris, C. (2001). “Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology”, Science and Public Policy, 28: pp. 345–60
)