IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i6p423-433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission as a boundary organization

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Leinhos

Abstract

Public bioethics advisory bodies have been a staple of US public policy for addressing public biotechnology- related controversies, in spite of the limited impact these bodies have had on policy-making. These advisory bodies serve an important tacit function as boundary organizations that stabilize the border between science and politics, preserving the autonomy of science from incursion by other societal stakeholders. In this paper the boundary work of the US National Bioethics Advisory Commission is examined at the border of science and ethics, in its deliberations on embryonic stem cell research. The coupling of scientific and ethical uncertainty, and that of research productivity and integrity assurance in the Commission's deliberations is described. It is argued that the Commission's boundary work reinforced the authority of science and marginalized conflicting civic-sector concerns. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Leinhos, 2005. "The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission as a boundary organization," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 423-433, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:6:p:423-433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779308
    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:32:y:2005:i:6:p:423-433. 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.