This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kelly, S. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Public Bioethics and Publics: Consensus, Boundaries, and Participation in Biomedical Science Policy

University of Louisville

Public bioethics bodies are used internationally as institutions with the declared aims of facilitating societal debate and providing policy advice in certain areas of scientific inquiry raising questions of values and legitimate science. In the United States, bioethical experts in these institutions use the language of consensus building to justify and define the outcome of the enterprise. However, the implications of public bioethics at science-policy boundaries are underexamined. Political interest in such bodies continues while their influence on societal consensus, public debate, and science policy remains ambiguous. This article presents a theoretical discussion of public bioethics bodies as boundary organizations and examines them in terms of relationship to the moral and cognitive authority of science and other forms of expertise, mechanisms for public participation in controversial science policy, and the deployment of consensus models. The theoretical discussion is examined in the case of the U.S. Human Embryo Research Panel.

Key Words: bioethics • public participation in science • science policy • human embryo research • boundary organizations • consensus

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Carolan Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms Science Technology Human Values, July 1, 2008; 33(4): 508 - 528. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Lengwiler Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology: Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective Science Technology Human Values, March 1, 2008; 33(2): 186 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Milanovic Travail d'articulation et organisations-frontieres dans la recherche urbaine francaise Social Science Information, March 1, 2006; 45(1): 109 - 138. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Evans Bibliography Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2003; 12(4): 445 - 446. [Abstract] [PDF]