Résumé
In 1999, the UK Government responded to escalating tensions surrounding biotechnology governance by creating two strategic, non-statutory advisory bodies: the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) and the Human Genetics Commission (HGC). They were designed to represent diverse stakeholder perspectives, operate transparently and engage with a variety of interested individuals and groups. This was a shift in meta-governance involving the creation of boundary organisations, discipline-bridging instruments of governance that serve to stabilise, clarify and legitimise policy advice. This paper has two main objectives: to conduct a comparative exploration of the relative success of HGC and AEBC as boundary organisations; and to test the utility of an analysis of public meeting transcripts, supplemented by interview data, in identifying factors contributing to consensus and contention in these twin Commissions.
| Langue d'origine | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (de-à) | 729-744 |
| Nombre de pages | 16 |
| Journal | Science and Public Policy |
| Volume | 33 |
| Numéro de publication | 10 |
| DOI | |
| Statut de publication | Published - déc. 2006 |
Note bibliographique
Funding Information:This research was funded by the Leverhulme Trust through the Programme on Understanding Risk (RSK990021). Some data derives from the project ‘Reforming the governance of human genetics: the politics of public trust’, supported by the ESRC Innovative Health Technologies Research Programme (L218252002). Additional support was provided by the ESRC SCARR programme (RES-336-25-0001). The authors are grateful to a number of colleagues for clarifying discussions, in particular, Tim O’Riordan, Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga and Brian Salter. They would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations.
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Public Administration
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law