Abstract
In response to political pressures arising from controversial science policy decisions, the United Kingdom (UK) government conducted a review of its biotechnology governance framework in 1999, identifying best practices of open government and creating strategic bodies to adopt them. Drawing from empirical data on the context and nature of the open government framework, this paper argues that the framework may be interpreted as elasticizing objectivity. Value-neutral scientific objectivity is essentially 'stretched' into a pluralist objectivity that purports to represent a spectrum of interests without privileging any, allowing the policy culture to retain its legitimating objectivity and authority. Governance implications of this analysis are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 247-270 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Social Epistemology |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 2-3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2004 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the ESRC Innovative Health Technologies Research Programme for the research project from which this paper is derived (‘Reforming the governance of human genetics: the politics of public trust’. Director Brian Salter, award number L218252002). The author also wishes to acknowledge the Leverhulme Trust’s Programme on Understanding Risk (Director Nick Pidgeon award number RSK 990021), which supports her current research at the Centre for Environmental Risk.
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Philosophy
- General Social Sciences