Debating the risks and ethics of emerging technosciences

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 77-103

  Kastenhofer, Karen ^a  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

Agri biotechnology; Discourse; Ethics; Frame analysis; Governance; Medical biotechnology; Risk

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ETHICS; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INNOVATION; MEDICAL GEOGRAPHY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 70350028653     PISSN: 13511610     EISSN: 14698412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13511610902770594     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Bauer, M.W., 2002. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis. Public understanding of science, 11 (2), 93-111.
2. BBC News April 14, 2008. "Limit" to lab egg and sperm use. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7346535.stm [Accessed 7 July 2008].
3. Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
4. Best, S. and Kellner, D., 2004. Biotechnology, ethics, and the politics of cloning. In: N. Stehr, ed. Biotechnology: between commerce and civil society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 53-88.
5. Bhardwaj, M., et al., 2003. Ethics in food and agriculture: views from FAO. International journal of food science and technology, 38, 565-577.
6. Binkhoff, C. and Sindram, M., 2002. Die Stammzellendebatte: Aktuelle Optionen und Konflikte. In: K. Segbers and D. Lullies, eds. Designing human beings. Die politische Dimension der Biotechnologie. Arbeitspapiere des Osteuropa-Instituts der Freien Universität Berlin (Heft, 40), 7-14.
7. Bogner, A., 2005. Die Ethisierung von Technikkonflikten Politikberatung durch Ethikkommissionen. In: M. Nentwich and W. Peissl, eds. Technikfolgenabschätzung in der österreichischen Praxis. Festschrift für Gunther Tichy. Vienna: Verlag der Ö sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 33-52.
8. Bogner, A. and Menz,W., 2005. The politics of knowledge and values: ethics expertise in the stem cell discourse. Teorie vedy/Theory of science. journal for theory of science, technology and communication, 14 (3), 113-126.
9. Bogner, A. and Menz, W., 2006. Wissen und Werte als Verhandlungsform. Ethikexpertise in der Regulation der Stammzellforschung. In: R. Wink, ed. Deutsche Stammzellpolitik im Zeitalter der Transnationalisierung. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 141-163.
10. Boschert, K. and Gill, B., 2005. Germany's agri-biotechnology policy: precaution for choice and alternatives. Science and public policy, 32 (4), 285-292.
11. Böschen, S., et al., 2006. Scientific cultures of non-knowledge in the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMO). The cases of molecular biology and ecology. GAIA, 15 (4), 294-301.
12. Brante, T., 1993. Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In: T. Brante, S. Fuller and W. Lynch., eds. Controversial science: from content to contention. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 177-191.
13. Braun, K., et al., 2008. Entscheidungen unter Bedingungen pluraler Nichtwissenskulturen. In: R. Mayntz, et al., eds. Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer. Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Ö ffentlichkeit. Bielefeld: transcript, 221-242.
14. Braun, K. et al., submitted manuscript. The politics of proper talk: governmental ethics regimes between the technological model and reflexive government.
15. Callahan, D., 1999. The social sciences and the task of bioethics. Daedalus, 128, 253-274.
16. Carr, S. and Levidow, L., 2000. Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty, and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 12, 29-39.
17. Critchley, C. and Turney, L., 2004. Understanding Australians' perceptions of controversial scientific research. Australian journal of emerging technologies and society, 2 (2), 82-107.
18. Dahinden, U., 2006. Framing. Eine integrative Theorie der Massenkommunikation. Konstanz: UVK.
19. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998. Opportunities for change: consultation paper on a revised UK strategy for sustainable development.
20. Dodds, S. and Thomson, C., 2006. Bioethics and democracy: competing roles of national bioethics organisations. Bioethics, 20 (6), 326-338.
21. Durant, J., ed., Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
22. Einsiedel, E., et al., 2002. Brave new sheep - the clone named Dolly. In: M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313-347.
23. Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
24. Førde, O.H., 1998. Is imposing risk awareness cultural imperialism? Social science and medicine, 47 (9), 1155-1159.
25. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 (7), 739-755.
26. Gaidzik, P. W., 2005. Ethik-Komitees: Rechtliche Aspekte. Erwägen Wissen Ethik, 16 (1), 26-28.
27. Gaskell, G. and Allum, N., 2001. Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty. Politeia, 17 (63), 13-25.
28. Gitlin, T., 1980. The whole world is watching: mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29. Gottweis, H., 2004. Human embryonic stem cells, cloning and the transformation of biopolitics. In: N. Stehr, ed. Biotechnology: between commerce and civil society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 239-265.
30. Grove-White, R., 2001. New wine, old bottles? Personal reflections on the new biotechnology commissions. The political quarterly, 72 (4), 466-472.
31. Gutteling, J.M., et al., 2002. Media coverage 1973-1996: trends and dynamics. In: M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Biotechnology - the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95-128.
32. Hedgecoe, A., et al., 2006. Research ethics committees in Europe: implementing the directive, respecting diversity. Journal of medical ethics, 32, 483-486.
33. Hornig Priest, S., 2006. The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: competing voices, contrasting frames. Public understanding of science, 15 (1), 55-71.
34. Hornig Priest, S., Bonfadelli, H., and Rusanen, M., 2003. The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk analysis, 23 (4), 751-66.
35. Hornig Priest, S. and Ten Eyck, T., 2004. Peril or promise: new media framing of the biotechnology debate in Europe and the US. In: N. Stehr, ed. Biotechnology: between commerce and civil society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 175-186.
36. Irwin, A., 2006. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social studies of science, 36 (2), 299-320.
37. Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Jones, K.E., 2004. BSE and the Philipps report: a cautionary tale about the uptake of "risk". In: N. Stehr, ed. The governance of knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 161-186.
39. Kelly, S.E., 2003. Public bioethics and publics: consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science technology human values, 28 (3), 339-364.
40. Kettner, M. and May, A., 2002. Ethik-Komitees in Kliniken - Bestandsaufnahmeund Zukunftsperspektiven. Ethik in der Medizin, 14, 295-297.
41. Klintman, M., 2002. The genetically modified (GM) food labelling controversy: ideological and epistemic crossovers. Social studies of science, 32 (1), 71-91.
42. Kohring, M. and Matthes, J., 2002. The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public understanding of science, 11 (2), 143-154.
43. Kotzian, P., 2007. Arguing and bargaining in international negotiations: on the application of the frame-selection model and its implications. International political science review, 28 (1), 79-99.
44. Lacey, H., 2005. Values and objectivity in science. The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
45. Lassen, J., et al., 2002. Testing times - the reception of Roundup Ready soya in Europe. In: M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 279-312.
46. Lenk, C., et al., 2004. Non-therapeutic research with minors: how do chairpersons of German research ethics committees decide? Journal of medical ethics, 30, 85-87.
47. Levidow, L., 2007. European public participation as risk governance: enhancing democratic accountability for agbiotech policy? East Asian science, technology and society: an international journal, 1, 19-51.
48. Liakopoulos, M., 2002. Pandora's Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology. Public understanding of science, 11, 5-32.
49. Lindsey, N., et al., 2001. Changing frames: the emergence of ethics in European policy on biotechnology. Politeia, 17 (63), 80-93.
50. Marks, L. A., et al., 2007. Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public understanding of science, 16 (2), 183-203.
51. Marris, C., 2001. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO reports, 2 (7), 545-548.
52. Morgan, D., 2004. Ethics, economics and the exotic: the early career of the HFEA. Health care analysis, 12 (1), 7-26.
53. Nida-Rümelin, J., 2004. Der ethische Diskurs in der modernen Medizin. In: Ch. Tannert and P. Wiedemann, eds. Stammzellen im Diskurs. Munich: oekom, 23-33.
54. Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B. V., 2002. Biotechnology and the American media. The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science communication, 23 (4), 359-391.
55. Nordmann, A., 2006. Collapse of distance: epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Danish yearbook of philosophy, 41, 7-34.
56. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999. Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
57. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2000. Stem cell therapy: the ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
58. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2004. The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. A follow up discussion paper. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
59. O'Neill, O., 2003. Stem cells: ethics, legislation and regulation. Comptes rendus biologies, 326, 673-676.
60. Oreszczyn, S., 2005. GM crops in the United Kingdom: precaution as process. Science and public policy, 32 (4), 317-324.
61. Pestre, D., 2008. Challenges for the democratic management of technoscience: governance, participation and the political today. Science as culture, 17 (2), 101-119.
62. Renn, O., 2008. Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.
63. Rittner, C., 2007. Aufgaben der ö ffentlich-rechtlichen Ethikkommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Rechtsmedizin, 17, 225-233.
64. Salter, B. and Jones, M., 2002. Human genetic technologies, European governance and the politics of bioethics. Nature reviews genetics, 3, 808-814.
65. Salter, B. and Jones, M., 2006. Change in the policy community of human genetics: a pragmatic approach to open governance. Policy and politics, 34 (2), 347-366.
66. Salter, B. and Salter, Ch., 2007. Bioethics and the global moral market. The cultural politics of human embryonic stem cell science. Science, technology, human values, 32 (5), 554-581.
67. Saretzki, T., 1996. Wie unterscheiden sich Argumentieren und Verhandeln? In: V. von Prittwitz, ed. Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Opladen: Leske - Budrich, 19-39.
68. Schummer, J., 2006. Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. Interdisciplinary science reviews, 31 (3), 217-230.
69. Skolbekken, J.-A., 1995. The risk epidemic in medical journals. Social science and medicine, 40 (3), 291-305.
70. Slowther, A. et al., 2001. Clinical ethics support in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK. Journal of medical ethics, 27 (suppl I), i2-i8.
71. Stehr, N., ed., 2004. The governance of knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
72. Ten Eyck, T., 2005. The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? Public understanding of science, 14, 305-316.
73. Toynbee, P., 2008. Religion doesn't rule in this clash of moral universes. The Guardian, 25 March, Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/25/ethicsofscience.medicalre.search [Accessed 7 July 2008].
74. Wehling, P., 2006. Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven der Soziologie des Nichtwissens. Konstanz: UVK.
75. Wynne, B., 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public understanding of science, 1 (3), 281-304.
76. Wynne, B., 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as culture, 10 (4), 445-481.
77. Zinn, J.O., 2008. A comparison of sociological theorizing on risk and uncertainty. In: J.O. Zinn, ed. Social theories of risk and uncertainty. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 168-210.