Ethical Reflection Must Always be Measured

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 839-864

  Braun, Kathrin ^a   Herrmann, Svea Luise ^a   Könninger, Sabine ^b   Moore, Alfred ^c  

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

governmental ethics regimes; politics of talk; public bioethics; reflexive government; scientific governance

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957267835     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243909357917     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abraham, J., and C. Davis 2007. Deficits, expectations and paradigms in British and American drug safety assessments: Prising open the black box of regulatory science. Science, Technology & Human Values 32:399-431.
2. Alias, F. 1992. Le comité consultatif national d'éthique et l'institutionnalisation d'un débat public relatif à l'éthique biomédicale. Approche critique. Ph.D. diss., Université Toulouse- Le Mirail, Toulouse.
3. Ashby, L. 1975. Report of the working party on the experimental manipulation of the genetic composition of micro-organisms. London, UK: HMSO (Cmnd 5880).
4. Bauer, M.W., J. Durant, G. Gaskell, M. Liakopoulos, and E. Bridgman. 1998. United Kingdom. In Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source-book, ed. John Durant, Martin W. Bauer, and Georg Gaskell, 162-176. London, UK: Science Museum.
5. Bmbf. 2006. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Richtlinien zur Förderung von Diskursprojekten zu ethischen, rechtlichen und sozialen Fragen in den modernen Lebenswissenschaften [database online]. http://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/6156.php (accessed December 18, 2006).
6. Bmft. 1984. Der Bundesminister für Forschung und Technologie. Ethische und rechtliche Problem der Anwendung zellbiologischer und genetischer Methoden am Menschen. Dokumentation des Fachgesprächs im Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie. München, Germany: J. Schweitzer Verlag.
7. Bogner, A., W. Menz, and W. Schumm. 2008. Ethikexpertise in Wertkonflikten. Zur Produktion und politischen Verwendung von Kommissionsethik in Deutschland und Österreich. In Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer. Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit, ed. Renate Mayntz, Friedhelm Neidhardt, Peter Weingart, and Ulrich Wengenroth, 243-268. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript.
8. Bud, R. 1995. In the engine of industry: Regulators of biotechnology, 1970-86. In Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, ed. Martin W. Bauer, 293-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. London, UK: SAGE.
10. EK DB 1986. Materialienband I-VI zum Kommissionsbericht der EnquêteKommission 'Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnik' BT DR 10/6775. Bonn, Germany: Enquête Kommission des Deutschen Bundestages.
11. Evans, J.H. 2002. Playing God: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of the public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Fiorino, D.J. 1989. Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 9:293-9.
13. Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy. Discoursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Foucault, M. 2000. The subject and power. In Power. Essential works of Foucault 1954 - 1984, vol. 3, ed. James D. Faubion, 326-48. New York: The New Press.
15. Foucault, M. 2003. Society must be defended. Lectures at the College de France 1975-1976. New York: Picador.
16. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, territory, population. Lectures at the College de France, 1977-78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Fuchs, M. 2005. National ethics councils. Their background, functions and modes of operation compared. Berlin, Germany: German National Ethics Council.
18. German National Ethics Council. 2001. The import of human embryonic stem cells. Opinion. Berlin, Germany: German National Ethics Council.
19. Gros, F., F. Jacob, and P. Royer. 1979. Sciences de la vie et société. Rapport présenté à M. le Président de la République. Paris, France: La Documentation française.
20. Hajer, M. 2003. A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society, ed. Maarten Hajer and Henk Wagenaar, 88-110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Herrmann, S., and S. Könninger. 2008. '... but you can not influence the direction of your thinking.' Guiding Self-Government in Bioethics Policy Discourse. In Bioethical issues: Sociological perspectives, ed. Barbara Katz Rothman, Elizabeth M. Armstrong, and Rebecca Tiger, 205-23. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
22. Hfea. 2007. Human fertilisation and embryology authority: Should we allow the creation of human/animal embryos? [database online]. Press release, 26 April 2007. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1518.html (accessed October 16, 2007).
23. Hilgartner, St. 1990. The dominant view of popularisation: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20:519-39.
24. Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 63:299-320.
25. Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
26. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 2003. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jasanoff, S. 1994. The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press.
28. Jasanoff, S. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-44.
29. Kelly, S.E. 2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28:339-64.
30. Krimsky, S. 1982. Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Laws, D., and M. Rein. 2003. Reframing practice. Deliberative policy analysis. In Understanding governance in the network society, ed. Maarten Hajer and Henk Wagenaar, 172-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Leinhos, M. 2005. The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission as a boundary organization. Science and Public Policy 32:423-33.
33. Levidow, L., J. Murphy, and S. Carr 2007. Recasting "substantial equivalence:" Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology & Human Values 32:26-64.
34. Marx, K. 1996. Capital, vol. 1. London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart.
35. Memmi, D. 1996. Les Gardiens du Corps. Dix Ans de Magistère Bio-éthique. Paris, France: Editions de l'EHESS.
36. NER. 2006. Informationen und Nachrichten aus dem Nationalen Ethikrat: VZK 64247, no. 11, August 2006 [database online] Nationaler Ethikrat. http://www.ethikrat.org (accessed September 1, 2006).
37. Plough, A., and S. Krimsky. 1987. The emergence of risk communications studies: social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values 12:4-10.
38. Rein, M., and D.A. Schön. 1993. Reframing policy discourse. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, ed. Frank Fischer and John Forester, 145-66. London, UK: UCL Press.
39. Rose, N. 1996. Governing "advanced" liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, ed. Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose, 37-64. Bedford, UK: UCL Press.
40. Rose, N., and C. Novas. 2005. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, ed. Aihwa Ong and J. Stephen Collier, 439-63. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
41. Salter, B., and Ch. Salter. 2007. Bioethics and the global moral economy: The cultural politics of human embryonic stem cell science. Science, Technology and Human Values 32:554-81.
42. Salter, B., and M. Jones. 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy 12:710-32.
43. STC. 2005. House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee: Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. London, UK: The Stationery Office.
44. Warnock, M. 1985. A question of life: The Warnock report on human fertilization and embryology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
45. Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society. An outline of interpretative sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46. Wildavsky, A. 1979. Speaking truth to power. The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.
47. Wright, S. 1994. Molecular politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for genetic engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
48. Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16:111-21.
49. Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 361-88. London, UK: SAGE.
50. Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment & modernity. Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-82. London, UK: SAGE.
51. Yoxen, E. 1990. Conflicting concerns: The political context of recent embryo research policy in Britain. In The new reproductive technologies, ed. Maureen McNeil, Ian Varcoe, and Steven Yearley, 173-99. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.