Science governance and the politics of proper talk: Governmental bioethics as a new technology of reflexive government

Economy and Society

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 510-533

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

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

France; Germany; Governmental bioethics; Great britain; Imperative of scientific progress; Participatory turn; Politics of proper talk; Reflexive government; Science governance

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ETHICS; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; GOVERNMENT; IDEOLOGY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH;

FRANCE; GERMANY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 78649471902     PISSN: 03085147     EISSN: 14695766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2010.510682     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alias, F. (1992). Le comité consultative national d'éthique et l'institutionnalisation d'un débat public relatif à l'éthique biomédicale: Approche critique: Institut des sciences sociales Raymond Ledrut (The CCNE and the institutionalization of public debate on biomedical ethics: A critique). Toulouse: Université Toulouse - Le Mirail.
2. Ashby, L. (1975). Report of the Working Party on the Experimental Manipulation of the Genetic Composition of Microorganisms. London: HMSO (Cmnd 5880).
3. Ashenden, S. (1996). Reflexive governance and child sexual abuse: Liberal welfare rationality and the Cleveland Inquiry. Economy and Society, 25(1), 64-88.
4. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (2006). Loi relative à la bioéthique (Bioethics law). Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.espace-ethique.org/fr/actualite.php#loi_bioethique.
5. Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., Gaskell, G., Liakopoulos, M., & Bridgman, E. (1998). United Kingdom. In J. Durant, M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook (pp. 162-176) London: Science Museum.
6. Beck, U. & Lau, C. (2005). Second modernity as a research agenda: Theoretical and empirical explorations in the 'meta_change' of modern society. British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 525-557.
7. Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(1), 1-33.
8. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Braun, K. & Schultz, S. (2009).'.a certain amount of engineering involved': Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science (Sage Journals Online).
10. Bud, R. (1995). In the engine of industry: Regulators of biotechnology, 1970-1986. In M. W. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology (pp. 293-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2006). c. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://www.bmbf.de/ foerderungen/6156.php.
12. Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (1984). Ethische und rechtliche Problem der Anwendung zellbiologischer und genetischer Methoden am Menschen: Dokumentation des Fachgesprächs im Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (Ethical and legal problems in the application of cellbased and genetic methods to human beings. A documentation). München: J. Schweitzer Verlag.
13. Bundesministerium der Gesundheit (2001). Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland: Wissenschaftliches Symposium des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Robert Koch-Institut, 24-26. Mai 2000 (Reproductive medicine in Germany). Berlin: Nomos Verlag.
14. Comité de Pilotage (2009). Les objectifs, les enjeu: Comité de pilotage des états généraux de la bioéthique (Aims and issues). Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.etatsgenerauxdelabioethique.fr/presentation-generale/les-objectifsles-enjeux.html.
15. Dean, M. (1998). Risk, calculable and incalculable. Soziale Welt, 49(1), 25-42.
16. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
17. Draft Decree (2001). Draft decree submitted to Cabinet on 25 April 2001, Establishment of a National Ethics Council. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://www.ethikrat.de/_english/about_us/decree.html.
18. Enquête Kommission des Deutschen Bundestages (1986). Materialienband I- VI zum Kommissionsbericht der Enquête-Kommission 'Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnik'. BT DR 10/6775.
19. Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of the public bioethical debate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9(3), 293-299.
21. Fischer, A. (2001). Schlusswort (Closing words). In Bundesministerium der Gesundheit (Ed.), Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland: Wissenschaftliches Symposium des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Robert Koch-Institut (pp. 326-329). Berlin: Nomos Verlag.
22. Foucault, M. (2000). The subject and power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power. Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 (Vol. 3; pp. 326-348). New York: The New Press.
23. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975-1976. New York: Picador.
24. German National Ethics Council (2001). The import of human embryonic stem cells: Opinion. Berlin: Nationaler Ethikrat Deutschland.
25. Gesetz zur Einrichtung des Deutschen Ethikrates (2007). (Act on the establishment of the German Ethics Board). Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.ethikrat.org/de_derethikratgesetz.php.
26. Gros, F., Jacob, F. & Royer, P. (1979). Sciences de la vie et société: Rapport présenté à M. le Président de la République (Life-sciences and society: Report). Paris: La Documentation Française.
27. Herrmann, S. L. (2009). Policy debates on reprogenetics: The problematisation of new research in Great Britain and Germany. Frankfurt and New York: Campus
28. House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee (2005). Human reproductive technologies and the law. London: The Stationery Office.
29. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000). Science and society: Third report, Session 1999- 2000: HL Paper 38. London: The Stationery Office. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
30. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 63(2), 299-320.
31. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223-244.
32. Kelly, S. E. (2003). Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 28(3), 339-364.
33. Krimsky, S. (1982). Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Memmi, D. (1996). Les gardiens du corps? Dix ans de magistère bioéthique (Gardians of bodies? Ten years of bioethical mastery). Paris: Éditions de l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
35. Nationaler Ethikrat (2006). Informationen und Nachrichten aus dem Nationalen Ethikrat. VZK 64247, No. 11, August 2006, p. 7. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.ethikrat.org.
36. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically modified crops: The ethical and social issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
37. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2000) Nuffield Council on Bioethics: 1992-1999. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
38. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005a) Memorandum on the provision of bioethics advice, Appendix 83. In House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Human reproductive technologies and the law. London: Science and Technology Select Committee.
39. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005b). The ethics of research involving animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
40. Plough, A. & Krimsky, S. (1987). The emergence of risk communications studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 4-10.
41. Rose, N. (1996a). Governing 'advanced' liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (pp. 7-64).Bedford: UCL Press.
42. Rose, N. (1996b). Inventing ourselves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture and Society, 18(6), 1-30.
44. Rose, N. & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 172-205.
45. Rose, N. & Novas, C. (2005). Biological citizenship. In A. Ong & J. S. Collier (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems (pp. 439-463). Oxford: Blackwell.
46. Salter, B. (2007). The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science. Global Governance, 13(2), 277-298.
47. Salter, B. & Jones, M. (2005). Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4), 710-732.
48. Teubner, G. (1983). Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law and Society Review, 17(2), 239-285.
49. Warnock, M. (1985). A question of life: The Warnock report on human fertilization and embryology. Oxford: Blackwell.
50. Wright, S. (1994). Molecular politics: Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press
51. Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4), 321-337.
52. Yoxen, E. (1990). Conflicting concerns: The political context of recent embryo research policy in Britain. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe & S. Yearley (Eds.), The new reproductive technologies (pp. 173-199). Basingstoke: Macmillan.