IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v29y2002i1p2-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Of being seen to do the right thing: Provisional findings from the first Australian consensus conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Mohr

Abstract

This is an initial evaluation of the first Australian consensus conference held in Canberra in March 1999. It illustrates lessons learnt from staging this method of participatory technology assessment (pTA) by applying an analytical framework consisting of three basic dimensions: social context; institutional context; and pTA arrangement. While Australia stands to benefit from implementing this new style of decision-making, there are obvious hurdles that must be overcome. When transplanting the consensus conference model into a new social context, it is apparent that a period of anticipatory socialisation is needed so that organisers and participants are clear about what can and cannot be achieved. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Mohr, 2002. "Of being seen to do the right thing: Provisional findings from the first Australian consensus conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 2-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:29:y:2002:i:1:p:2-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154302781781155
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.

    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:29:y:2002:i:1:p:2-12. 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.