IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i3p177-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Sue Mayer

Abstract

Whilst there are increasing and welcome efforts to bring the public into decision making about risk, the underlying shaping of the science agenda remains closed to public scrutiny. Therefore, when debating the questions over new technologies, the kinds of knowledge the public requests may not have been gathered. The goal of wealth generation underlying the UK's science programme may not allow for public interest questions to be addressed. Science's institutions enforce a notion of good science which also excludes wider questions. To address the dislocation of science from the public, there needs to be civil society engagement with setting the research agenda. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sue Mayer, 2003. "Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 177-181, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:177-181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780489
    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. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    3. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    4. Patrick Rondé & Caroline Hussler, 2006. "Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : une analyse des priorités des experts français," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 175(4), pages 65-77.
    5. Guta, Adrian & Strike, Carol & Flicker, Sarah & J. Murray, Stuart & Upshur, Ross & Myers, Ted, 2014. "Governing through community-based research: Lessons from the Canadian HIV research sector," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 250-261.

    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:30:y:2003:i:3:p:177-181. 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.