IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v25y1998i5p327-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parliamentary technology assessment of biotechnologies: A review of major TA reports in the European Union and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Mironesco

Abstract

Based on a review of some major technology assessment agencies dealing with biotechnology and bioethics in the USA and five countries of Europe, this study compares the approach in the different countries. It is found that the countries of Europe have less national differences than there are between the USA and Europe. The core concern in Europe has been to promote biotechnologies without meeting too much popular resistance. In Denmark and some other European countries the will to include citizens in technological debates has led to the setting up of consensus conferences, involving a lay panel which issues a report at the end of the process. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Mironesco, 1998. "Parliamentary technology assessment of biotechnologies: A review of major TA reports in the European Union and the USA," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(5), pages 327-342, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:25:y:1998:i:5:p:327-342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/25.5.327
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:25:y:1998:i:5:p:327-342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.