Governance-by-standards in the field of stem cells: Managing uncertainty in the world of "basic innovation"

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 99-111

  Webster, Andrew ^a   Eriksson, Lena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Governance; Standards; Stem cells

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; LABORATORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; REVIEW; STANDARD; STEM CELL;

EID: 45849108377     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770802077009     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Akrich, M., 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In: W.E. Bijker and J. Law, eds. Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge: MIT Press, 205-224.
2. Bos, N., et al., 2007. From shared databases to communities of practice: a taxonomy of collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (2), 652-672.
3. Brown, N. and Kraft, A., 2006. Blood ties: banking the stem cell promise. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 (3/4), 313-327.
4. Callon, M., Meadel, C., and Rabeharisoa, V., 2005. The economy of qualities. In: A. Barry and D. Slater, eds. The technological economy. London: Routledge, 28-50.
5. Calvert, J., 2004. The idea of "basic research" in language and practice. Minerva, 42, 251-268.
6. Collins, H.M., 2000. Surviving closure: post-rejection adaptation and plurality in science. American Sociological Review, 65, 824-845.
7. Crane, D., 1972. Invisible colleges. Chicago University Press.
8. Dawson, L., et al., 2003. Safety issues in cell-based intervention trials. Fertility and Sterility, 80, 1077-1085.
9. Eriksson, L. and Webster A., forthcoming. Standardising the unknown: practicable pluripotency as doable futures. Science as Culture.
10. Faulkner, A., 2006. Purity and the dangers of regenerative medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2277-2288.
11. Faulkner, A., et al., 2003. Human tissue engineered products - drugs or devices? Tackling the regulatory vacuum. British Medical Journal, 326, 1159-1160.
12. Fujimura, J., 1987. Constructing doable problems in cancer research: articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17, 257-293.
13. Geels, F., 2007. Transformations of large technical systems. Science Technology and Human Values, 32, 123-150.
14. Heisenberg, W., 1927. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172-198.
15. Hilgartner, S., 2000. Acceptable intellectual property. Working Paper, Cornell University.
16. Latour, B., 1987. Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
17. Loring, J.F. and Rao, M.S., 2006. Establishing standards for the characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines. Stem Cells, 24, 145-150.
18. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
19. Rapp, R., 1999. Testing the women, testing the fetus. New York: Routledge.
20. Remondet, M., 2007. Places of experience. Paris: Ecoles Des Mines.
21. Rheinberger, H.-J., 1997. Toward a history of epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22. Rip, A. and Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: S. Rayner and E. Malone, eds. Human choices and climate change. Vol. 2. Columbus, OH: Battelle, 327-392.
23. Timmermans, S. and Berg, M., 2003. The gold standard: the challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.