Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: a case study of the UK National Consensus Conference

Abstract The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology was organized by the Science Museum and held in Regent's College, London, in November 1994. A Lay Paneldrawn from the public questioned expert witnesses from the industry and its opponents and then presented their conclusions in a report. It was the first time a newtechnology had been exposed to this type of deliberative consultation in the UK. This conference was an attempt to fix an agreed consensus on the future of a highly contentious technology. At stake in this debate was who represents popular feelings about the social and environmental effects of this new technology. Public discussion of biotechnology is increasing in frequency and intensity. However, sustained face-to-face encounters between members of the public, biotech experts and environ-mentalists are still rare events. The article explores the ways in which this encounter was framed, including the production of the identities of expert and lay person. Enduring problems rem...

[1]  Bob Jessop,et al.  The regulation approach, governance and post-Fordism: alternative perspectives on economic and political change? , 1995 .

[2]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[3]  M. Stewart TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE: The Politics of Local Complacency , 1996 .

[4]  B. Wynne,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. , 1994 .

[5]  P. Glasner,et al.  Empowering the public? Citizens' juries and the new genetic technologies , 1998 .

[6]  A. Irwin Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1995 .

[7]  Jon Fixdal Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’ , 1997 .

[8]  B. Massumi,et al.  The postmodern condition : a report on knowledge , 1979 .

[9]  James C. Scott,et al.  Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. , 1992 .

[10]  D. Haraway,et al.  Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse , 1997 .

[11]  Paul Hoggett,et al.  The politics of decentralisation : revitalising local democracy , 1994 .

[12]  C. Lane,et al.  Trust within and between organizations : conceptual issues and empirical applications , 2000 .

[13]  J. Durant,et al.  Eurobarometer 35.1. Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. , 1992 .

[14]  Jack Kloppenburg,et al.  First the seed : the political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492-2000 , 1988 .

[15]  G. Stoker Governance as theory: five propositions , 1998 .

[16]  E. Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[17]  Geoffrey Nowell‐Smith,et al.  Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci , 2015 .

[18]  Scott A. Hunt,et al.  Dramaturgy and Social Movements: The Social Construction and Communication of Power , 1992 .

[19]  A. Giddens The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy , 1999 .

[20]  The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. , 1982 .

[21]  S. Eden Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions , 1996 .

[22]  A. Giddens The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[23]  V. Shiva,et al.  The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. , 1994 .

[24]  Martin Chalmers,et al.  Risk Society and the Provident State , 1998 .

[25]  J. Durant,et al.  The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology , 1995 .

[26]  A. Melucci Liberation or Meaning? Social Movements, Culture and Democracy , 1992 .

[27]  E. Goffman Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[28]  Gerry Stoker,et al.  Enhancing public participation in local government , 1998 .

[29]  M. Callon,et al.  Некоторые элементы социологии перевода: приручение морских гребешков и рыболовов бухты Сен-Бриё , 2017 .