Time, timing and narrative at the interface between UK techno-science and policy

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 639-648

  Beynon Jones, Siân M ^a   Brown, Nik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL GEOGRAPHY; POLICY MAKING; REGULATORY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

CANADA; NETHERLANDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 80053199558     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234211X13111546663331     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adam, B 1998. Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards. London: Routledge.
2. Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation 1997.Animal tissue into humans: A report by the advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation. London: Department of Health.
3. Brown, N 2000. Organising/disorganising the breakthrough motif: Dolly the cloned ewe meets Astrid the hybrid pig. In Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience, N Brown, B Rappert and A Webster (eds.), pp 87-108. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
4. Brown, N 2009. Beasting the embryo: the metrics of humanness in the transpecies embryo debate. Biosocieties, 4(2/3), 147-163.
5. Brown, N, B Rappert and A Webster (eds.) 2000. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
6. Bucchi, M and F Neresini 2008. Science and public participation. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, E J Hacket, O Amsterdamska, M Lynch and J Wajcman (eds.), pp 449-472. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
7. Deuten, J J and A Rip 2000. The narrative shaping of a product creation process. In Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience, N Brown, B Rappert and A Webster (eds.), pp 65-87. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
8. Einsiedel, E 2002. Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 315-331.
9. Einsiedel, E 2008. Public participation and dialogue. In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, M Bucchi and B Trench (eds.), pp 173-184. London: Routledge.
10. Einsiedel, E, M Jones and M Brierley 2010. Canada, U.S, Japan. CIT-PART: Draft studies. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary.
11. Fox, M 2005. Reconfiguring the animal/human boundary: the impact of xeno technologies. Liverpool Law Review, 26(2),149-167.
12. Frewer, L and B Salter 2002. Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: the case of BSE. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 137-145.
13. Irwin, A 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1-18.
14. Irwin, A 2006. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299-320.
15. Jasanoff, S 1997. Civilisation and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science, 6(3), 221-232.
16. Jasanoff, S 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. McLean, S and L Williamson 2007. The demise of UKXIRA and the regulation of solid-organ xenotransplantation in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(7), 373-375.
18. National Forum on Xenotransplantation 1997. Report of the National Forum on Xenotransplantation: Clinical, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada.
19. Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1996. Animal-to-Human Transplants: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
20. Powell, M C and M Colin 2008. Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take? Science Communication, 30(1), 126-136.
21. Rogers-Hayden, T and N Pidgeon 2007. Moving engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's Inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 345-364.
22. Selin, C 2006. Time matters: temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks. Time and Society, 15(1), 121-139.
23. Twine, R 2010. Animals as Biotechnology: Ethics, Sustainability and Critical Animal Studies. London: Earthscan.
24. UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority 1998. Guidance on Making Proposals to Conduct Xenotransplantation on Human Subjects. London: Department of Health.
25. UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority 1999. Second Annual Report: September 1998-August 1999. London: Department of Health.
26. UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority 2000. Third Annual Report: September 1999-November 2000. London: Department of Health.
27. Uncaged Campaigns 2000. Diaries of Despair. Available at http://www.xenodiaries.org/overview.htm.
28. van Lente, H 1993. Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Enschede: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
29. van Lente, H 2000. Forceful futures: from promise to requirement. In Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience, N Brown, B Rappert and A Webster (eds.), pp 43-64. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
30. Versteeg, W and A Loeber 2010. The Netherlands. CIT-PART: Draft studies. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
31. Wilsdon, J and R Willis 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
32. Wynne, B 2005. Risk as globalizing 'democratic' discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, M Leach, I Scoomes and B Wynne (eds.), pp 66-82. London: Zed Books Ltd.
33. Wynne, B 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211-220.