IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i10p729-744.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Separated at birth? Consensus and contention in the UK agriculture and human biotechnology commissions

Author

Listed:
  • Mavis Jones
  • John Walls
  • Tom Horlick-Jones

Abstract

In 1999, the UK Government responded to escalating tensions surrounding biotechnology governance by creating two strategic, non-statutory advisory bodies: the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) and the Human Genetics Commission (HGC). They were designed to represent diverse stakeholder perspectives, operate transparently and engage with a variety of interested individuals and groups. This was a shift in meta-governance involving the creation of boundary organisations, discipline-bridging instruments of governance that serve to stabilise, clarify and legitimise policy advice. This paper has two main objectives: to conduct a comparative exploration of the relative success of HGC and AEBC as boundary organisations; and to test the utility of an analysis of public meeting transcripts, supplemented by interview data, in identifying factors contributing to consensus and contention in these twin Commissions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Mavis Jones & John Walls & Tom Horlick-Jones, 2006. "Separated at birth? Consensus and contention in the UK agriculture and human biotechnology commissions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 729-744, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:10:p:729-744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778560
    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:33:y:2006:i:10:p:729-744. 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.