The problem of citizens' participation in Finnish biotechnology policy

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 441-454

  Rask, Mikko ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 0942278088     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154303781780236     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abbott, Alison (1997), "Embo panel gives biology in Finland a pat on the back", Nature, 385(6618), page 666.
2. Biotekniikkakomitea (1993), Geenitekniikka; ehdotus geenitekniikkalaiksi (Ympäristö-ministeriö, Helsinki).
3. Bouckaert, Geert, Derry Ormond and Guy Peters (2000), A Potential Governance Agenda for Finland (Ministry of Finance, Helsinki).
4. Brännback, Malin, Juha Näsi and Maija Renko (2001), Strategic Change in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry - The Finnish Biotechnology Industry (Innomarket, Turku).
5. Bruun, Henrik (2002), "The emergence of a regional innovation network. A process analysis of the local bio grouping in Turku, Finland", in M Sotarauta and H Bruun (editors), Nordic Perspectives on Process-Based Regional Development Policy (Nordregio, Stockholm).
6. Bruun, Henrik, Maria Höyssä and Janne Hukkinen (2001), "Networks of ephemeral empowerment, the birth of a biotechnology centre in Turku, Finland", Technology, Society, Environment (Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory of Environmental Protection Publication) pages 53-70.
7. Court decision (2003), Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätös 10.2.2003, diaarinumero 699/1/02 (Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court 10 February 2003, record number 699/1/02).
8. Dierkes, Meinolf, and Claudia von Grote (editors) (2000), Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology (Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam).
9. Eurobarometer (1997), Eurobarometer 46.1, European Opinions on Modern Biotechnology (European Commission, DG XII, Brussels).
10. Eurobarometer (2000), Eurobarometer 52.1. The Europeans and Biotechnology (INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office).
11. Frewer, Lynn, Gene Rowe, Roy Marsh and Catherine Reynolds (2001), Public Participation Methods: evolving and operationalising an evaluation framework. Summary Project Report (UK Department of Health, Norwich).
12. Healey, Peter (1999), "Popularising science for the sake of economy: the UK experience", in R Miettinen (editor), Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science. Proceedings of the UK-Nordic Co-Operative Seminar in Helsinki October 25-27, 1998 (Academy of Finland, Helsinki).
13. Heath, Robert L (editors) (2001), Handbook of Public Relations (Sage, California, London, New Delhi).
14. Heiskanen, Eva, and Päivi Timonen (2003), Towards a Sustainable Information Society? An experiment in participatory and constructive technology assessment on grocery shopping (National Consumer Research Centre, Helsinki, in Finnish).
15. Hermans, R, and T Luukkonen (2002), "Finnish biotechnology industry in a dynamic stage", Finnish Economy and Society, 4, pages 72-79.
16. Hill, Alison, and Mike Michael (1998), "Engineering acceptance: representations of 'the public' in debates on biotechnology", in P Wheale, R von Schomberg and P Glasner (editors , The Social Management of Genetic Engineering (Ashgate, Aldershot).
17. Hukkinen, Janne (1995), "Corporatism as an impediment to ecological sustenance: the case of Finnish waste management", Ecological Economics, 15, pages 59-75.
18. Hukkinen, Janne (1995), "Long-term environmental policy under corporatist institutions", European Environment, 5, pages 98-105.
19. Irwin, Alan (1995), Citizen Science. A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (Routledge, London and New York).
20. Irwin, Alan, and Brian Wynne (editors) (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
21. Joss, Simon, and John Durant (editors) (1995), Public Participation in Science - The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum with the Support of the European Commissions Directorate General XII, London).
22. Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Joop F Koppenjan (2000), "Interactive decision making and representative democracy: institutional collisions and solutions," in O von Heffen, W Kickert and J Thomassen (editors , Governance in Modern Society. Effects, Change and Formation of Government Institutions (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London).
23. Klüver, Lars, Michael Nentwich, Walter Peissl, Helge Torgersen, Fritz Gloede, Leonard Hennen, Josée van Eijndhoven, Rinie van Est, Simon Joss and Sergio Bellucci (2000), EUROPTA. European Participatory Technology Assessment. Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making (The Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen).
24. Kuusi, Hannele (2000), "Biotechnology in Finland", Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 6(3), pages 188-198.
25. Kuusi, Hannele (2001), "Finland a European leader in biotechnology", Kemia-Kemi, 28(6), pages 432-437.
26. Locke, Simon (1999), "Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma", Public Understanding of Science, 8, pages 75-92.
27. Michael, Mike (1998), "Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the 'public understanding of science'", Public Understanding of Science, 7, pages 313-327.
28. Michael, Mike (2001), "Technoscientific bespoking: animals, publics and the new genetics", New Genetics and Society, 20(3), pages 205-224.
29. Miettinen, Reijo, and Esa Väliverronen (1999), "In science and technology we trust: on the public understanding of science in Finland", in R Miettinen (editor), Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science. Proceedings of the UK-Nordic Co-Operative Seminar Helsinki October 25-27, 1998 (Academy of Finland, Helsinki).
30. Miller, Steve (2001), "Public understanding of science at the crossroads", Public Understanding of Science, 10, pages 115-120.
31. Nurttila, Annika, and Marja Pohjanpalo (2001), "Elintarvikevirasto käynnistää asiakasfoorumit", Elintarvikevalvonta, 2001(6), pages 10-12.
32. OPM, Opetusministeriö (1997), Molekyylibiologian ja bioteknologian arvioinnin seurantatyöryhmān vālimuistio (Opetusministeriö, Helsinki).
33. OPM, Opetusministeriö (2000), Biotekniikka 2000 -tyōryhmān välimuistio (Opetusministeriö, Helsinki ).
34. Pinch, Trevor J, and Wiebe E Bijker (1999), "The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and sociology of technology might benefit each other", in W Bijker, T Hughes and T Pinch (editors), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, London).
35. Räikkä, Juha, and Kaija Rossi (2002), "Geenit ja arvot", Tieteessä tapahtuu, 2/2002.
36. Rask, Mikko, Riikka Eela, Topi Heikkerö and Aleksi Neuvonen (1999), Values and Participation in Technology Assessment - experiences of assessing gene technology (VTT Group for Technology Studies, Espoo, in Finnish).
37. Salo, Ahti, Veli Kauppinen and Mikko Rask (1998), Plant Gene Technology in Food Production. Parliament of Finland - Committee for the Future, Technology Assessment 3 (Parliament of Finland, Helsinki, in Finnish with English summary).
38. Schenkelaars (2002), Public Information and Public Participation in the Context of EU Directives 90/220 and 2001/18 (Shenkelaar Biotechnology Consultancy, Leiden, The Netherlands).
39. Schienstock, Gerd, and Pasi Tulkki (2001), "The fourth pillar? An assessment of the situation of the Finnish biotechnology", Small Business Economics, An International Journal, 17(1/2), pages 105-122.
40. Sjøberg, Svein, and Egil Kallerud (editors) (1997), Science, Technology and Citizenship. The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Science Education and Research Policy (Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning, Oslo).
41. Slovic, Paul (2000), "Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield", in R E Löfstedt (editors), The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, London, Sterling).
42. Slovic, Paul (2001), "Perceived risk, trust and democracy", in R E Löfstedt (editors), The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, London and Sterling).
43. Snell, Karoliina (2002), "The image of citizens in biotechnology policy: citizens, consumers and human beings in Finland and the European Union", Sosiologia, 39 (4), pages 285-295, in Finnish.
44. SPP, Science and Public Policy (1999), Special issue on public participation in science and technology, Science and Public Policy, 26(5), October.
45. Tiedebarometri (2001), Tutkimus suomalaisten suhtautumisesta tieteeseen ja tieteellis-tekniseen kehitykseen (Tieteen tiedotus ry, Helsinki).
46. Väliverronen, Esa (2001), "From mediation to mediatization: the new politics of communicating science and biotechnology", in U Kivikuru and T Savolainen (editors), The Politics of Public Issues (Department of Communication, University of Helsinki).
47. van Asselt, M, J Mellors, N Rijkens-Klomp, S Greeneuw, K Molendijk, P Beers and P van Notten (2001), Building Blacks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A Review of Participatory Methods (ICIS, International Centre for Integrated Studies, Maastricht).
48. Vercic, Dejan, and James E Grunig (2000), "The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic management", in D Moss, D Vercic and G Warnaby (editors), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (Routledge, London and New York).
49. von Grote, Claudia, and Meinolf Dierkes (2000), "Public understanding of science and technology: state of the art and consequences for future research", in M Dierkes and C von Grote (editors), Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology (Harwood Academic Publisher, Amsterdam).
50. Wynne, Brian (1995), "Public understanding of science", in S Jasanoff, G Markle, E Petersen, and T Pinch (editors), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, London).