Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 177-181

  Mayer, Sue ^a  

^a GeneWatch UK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; DECISION MAKING; DEMOCRACY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0141749276     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154303781780489     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. ACRE, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (2002), "ACRE's response to concerns raised in written representations and submissions associated with the Chardon LL public hearing and to statements made at ACRE'S open hearing relating to the safety assessment of T25 GM maize conducted under Directive 90/220/EEC", available at , last accessed 14 July 2003.
2. BBSRC, Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (2002), "Annual Report 2001-02" (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Swindon), available at , last accessed 14 July 2003.
3. Blair, A (2002), Prime Minister's speech, "Science matters", available at , last accessed 14 July 2003.
4. CEC, Commission of the European Communities (1991), Promoting the Competitive Environment for the Industrial Activities based on Biotechnology within the Community, Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council, CEC (19) 629 final (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels).
5. Chief Scientific Adviser (2000), Guidelines 2000. Scientific advice and policy making (Department of Trade and Industry, London) available on , last accessed 14 July 2003.
6. DEFRA, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003), , last accessed 14 July 2003.
7. GeneWatch UK (2002), Human Genetic Technologies: implications for preventative health care. A report for the WHO by GeneWatch UK (World Health Organisation, Geneva, WHO/HGN/Rep/02.1).
8. House of Lords (2002), "Select Committee report on animals in scientific procedures" (HMSO, London).
9. HM Government (1993), "Realising our potential. A strategy for science, engineering and technology", CM 2250 (HMSO, London).
10. HM Treasury (2002), "Investing in innovation. A strategy for science, engineering and technology", DTI, HM Treasury and DFES, July (HMSO, London) available on , last accessed 14 July 2003.
11. Kaplinsky, N, D Braun, D Lisch, A Hay, S Hake and M Freeling (2002), "Maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts", Nature, 416, pages 601-602.
12. Levidow, L (1994), "Biotechnology regulation as symbolic normalisation", Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6(3), pages 273-288.
13. Levidow, L, and S Carr (2000), "UK: precautionary commercialisation?", Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), pages 261-270.
14. Marris, C, B Wynne, P Simmons and S Weldon (2001), "Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project", available on , last accessed 14 July 2003
15. Mayer, S (2002), "From genetic modification to nanotechnology: the dangers of 'sound science'", in T Gilland (editor), Science: can we trust the experts (Hodder and Stoughton, London).
16. Metz, M, and J Futterer (2002), "Suspect evidence of genetic contamination", Nature, 416, pages 600-601.
17. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002), The Ethics of Patenting DNA (The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London).
18. Quist, D, and I H Chapela (2001), "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico", Nature, 414, pages 541-542.
19. Quist, D, and I H Chapela (2002), "Reply to letters", Nature, 416, page 602.
20. Wynne, B (2001), "Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs", Science as Culture, 10, pages 445-481.