Policy legitimation, expert advice, and objectivity: 'Opening' the UK governance framework for human genetics

Social Epistemology

Volumn 18, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 247-270

  Jones, Mavis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Legitimacy; Objectivity; Open government; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 5644292375     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0269172042000249318     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Abraham, J., and J. Sheppard. 1997. Democracy, technocracy, and the secret state of medicines control: expert and nonexpert perspectives. Science, Technology & Human Values 22(2): 139-68.
2. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. 2001. Transcript of consultation: Farm Scale Evaluation, Norwich. http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/ norwich.pdf
3. Alvesson, M., and D. Karreman. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organisations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53(9): 1125-49.
4. Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy 26(5): 331-40.
5. Bacchi, C. 2000. Policy as discourse: what does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 21(1): 45-57.
6. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
7. Ben-David, J. 1991. Scientific growth: essays on the social organization and ethos of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Bickerstaff, K., and P. Simmons. (2004) The right tool for the job? Modelling, spatial relationships and styles of scientific practice in the UK foot and mouth crisis. Environment and Planning: D 22: 393-412.
9. Birrer, F. A. J. 2001. Social science political counseling: the good, the bad and the enticed. Science and Public Policy 28(6): 438-40.
10. Burman, E., and I. Parker. 1993. Introduction - discourse analysis: the turn to the text. In E. Burman and I. Parker, eds. Discourse analytic research: repertoires and readings of texts in action, pp. 1-13. London: Routledge.
11. Cabinet Office and Office of Science and Technology. 1999. The advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology: Report from the government's review.
12. Chubin, D. 1989. Progress, culture, and the cleavage of science from society. In S. L. Goldman, ed. Science, technology, and social progress. Vol. 2. Research in technology studies, pp. 177-95. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
13. Code, L. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In L. Alcoff and E. Potter, eds. Feminist epistemologies, pp. 15-48. London: Routledge.
14. Cozzens, S. E., and E. J. Woodhouse. 1995. Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch, eds. Handbook of science and technology studies, pp. 533-53. London: Sage.
15. Dogan, M. 1992. Conceptions of legitimacy. In M. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan, eds. Encyclopedia of government and politics. Vol. 1, pp. 116-26. London: Routledge.
16. Eder, K. 1996. The institutionalisation of environmentalism: ecological discourse and the second transformation of the public sphere. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne, eds. Risk, environment and modernity, pp. 203-23. London: Sage.
17. Etzkowitz H., and A. Webster. 1995. Science as intellectual property. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch, eds. Handbook of science and technology studies, pp. 481-505. London: Sage.
18. European Parliament and Council. 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal L 268, 18/10/2003 P. 0001-0023
19. Ewen, S. W. B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalus rectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 351 (9847): 1353.
20. Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. London: Sage.
21. Flinders, M. 2000. The politics of accountability: a case study of the freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom. Political Quarterly 71(4): 422-41.
22. Food Standards Agency. 2001. Lessons to be learned from the BSE Inquiry. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk
23. Foucault, M. 1995. The archeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
24. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Giere, R. 1993. Science and technology studies: prospects for an enlightened postmodern synthesis. Science, technology, and human values 18(1): 102-12.
26. Giles, J. 2003. Biosafety trials darken outlook for transgenic crops in Europe. Nature 425: 751.
27. Gummett, P. 1992. Science and technology policy. In M. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan, eds. Encyclopedia of government and politics. Vol. 2, pp. 759-76. London: Routledge.
28. Habermas, J. 1988. Legitimation crisis. Cambridge: Polity.
29. Hamstra, A. 1995. The role of the public in instruments of constructive technology assessment. In S. Joss and J. Durant, eds. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 53-66. London: Science Museum.
30. Harding, S. 1991. Whose science? whose knowledge? thinking from women's lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
31. _. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: 'What is strong objectivity?' In L. Alcoff and E. Potter, eds. Feminist epistemologies, pp. 49-82. London: Routledge.
32. Hess, D. J. 1997. If you're thinking of living in STS: a guide for the perplexed. In G.L. Downey and J. Dumit, eds. Cyborgs & citadels: anthropological interventions in emerging sciences and technologies, pp. 143-64. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
33. Ho, M.-W., and J. Mathews. 2001. The new thought police - suppressing dissent in science. Institute of Science in Society. http://www.i-sis.org/ sciencewar-pr.shtml
34. Horkheimer, M., and T. Adorno. 1947. Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. Translated 2002, Edmund Jephcott. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
35. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2003. Third Report: The Work of the Medical Research Council. Available at: http://www.parliament. the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmsctech/132/13202.htm
36. Hubbard, R., and E. Wald. 1997. Exploding the gene myth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
37. Human Genetics Commission website: http://www.hgc.gov.uk
38. Human Genetics Commission. 2001. Whose hands on your genes? A consultation on the storage, protection and use of personal genetic information. Available at: http://www.hgc.gov.uk/business_consultations2.htm
39. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
40. Interview 1. 2002. Anonymous.
41. Interview 2. 2002. Karen Thompson, British Diabetic Association, 18 March.
42. Interview 3. 2002. Dan Lyons, Uncaged, 17 July.
43. Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17: 195-230.
44. Jones, M., and B. Salter, 2003. The governance of human genetics: policy discourse and constructions of public trust. New Genetics and Society 22(1): 21-41.
45. Joss, S., and J. Durant, 1995. Introduction. In S. Joss and J. Durant, eds. Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 9-13. London: Science Museum.
46. Keenoy, T., C. Oswick, and D. Grant. 1998. Organizational discourses: text and context. Organization 4: 147-57.
47. Krimsky, S., J. G. Ennis, and R. Weissman. 1991. Academic-corporate ties in biotechnology: a quantitative study. Science, Technology & Human Values 16(3): 275-287.
48. Massey, C. 1994. The public participation program of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: an evaluation. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
49. McKechnie, R. 1996. Insiders and outsiders: identifying experts on home ground. In A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, pp. 126-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Miller, D. 1999. Risk, science and policy: definitional struggles, information management, the media and BSE. Social Science & Medicine 49: 1239-55.
51. MORI/Office of Science and Technology. 1999. The public consultation on developments in the biosciences: A MORI report investigating public attitudes to the biological sciences and their oversight. Commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology. December 1998-April 1999. http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ ostbusiness/puset/bio_consult.pdf.
52. O'Hara, J. 1998. Whistle-blower. Maclean's, November 16, 65-69.
53. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1979. Technology on trial: public participation in decision-making related to science and technology. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
54. Packer, K., and A. Webster. 1996. Patenting culture in science: reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(4): 427-53.
55. Pilkington, C. 1999. The civil service in Britain today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
56. Porter, T. M. 1995. Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57. Prime Minister and Minister for the Cabinet Office. 1999. Modernising Government (White Paper). Available at: http://www.archive.official-documents. co.uk/document/cm43/4310/4310.htm
58. Rappert, B., and A. Webster, 1997. Regimes of ordering: the commercialization of intellectual property in industrial-academic collaborations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9(2): 115-30.
59. Rifkin, J. 1998. The biotech century: harnessing the gene and remaking the world. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
60. Rip, A., T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 1995. Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip, T.J. Misa, and J. Schot, eds. Managing Technology in Society, pp. 1-14. London: Pinter.
61. Rothstein, H. F. 2003. Neglected risk regulation: the institutional attenuation phenomenon. Health, Risk and Society 5(1): 85-103.
62. Ross, A. 1993. The challenge of science. In S. During, ed. The cultural studies reader, pp. 292-304. London: Routledge.
63. Salter, B., and Jones, M. (2004). Divided policy community and excluded policy networks: the case of human genetics regulation. Submitted, Journal of Public Policy.
64. Savan, B. 1988. Science under siege: the myth of objectivity in scientific research. Montreal: CBC Enterprises.
65. Sclove, R. E. 1995. Democracy and technology. New York: The Guilford Press.
66. Schott, T. 1993. World science: globalization of institutions and participation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(2): 196-208.
67. Shiva, V. 1989. Staying alive: women, ecology and development. London: Zed Books.
68. Sismondo, S. 1996. Science without myth: on constructions, reality, and social knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
69. Steering Board of the Public Debate on GM. 2003. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. Department of Trade and Industry, UK.
70. Wallace, H. 2002. The need for independent scientific peer review of Biobank UK. Lancet 359(9325).
71. Weale, A. 2001. Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy. Science and Public Policy 28(6): 413-21.
72. Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, thought & reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73. Williams, N. 1998. The changing face of Whitehall: open government, policy development and the quest for efficiency. Political Quarterly 69(3): 258-68.
74. Winner, L. 1986. The whale and the reactor: the search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
75. Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(1): 111-21.