IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v38y2011i8p619-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultures, contexts and commitments in the governance of controversial technologies: US, UK and Canadian publics and xenotransplantation policy development

Author

Listed:
  • Edna F Einsiedel
  • Mavis Jones
  • Meaghan Brierley

Abstract

While there has been considerable interest in public participation in new and controversial technologies in the last two decades, less attention has been paid to how different ‘publics’ and ‘participation’ are constructed and defined in the context of policy development and the contingencies (historical, cultural, and situational) that can contextualize these processes. This study examines the development of xenotransplantation policy in the US, Canada and the UK in order to understand the emergence of different publics and versions of participation in the social appraisal of a controversial biomedical technology. By examining publics in invited arenas and those that operate in public spaces outside of these official rooms (paying special attention to animal rights and welfare groups), we suggest that a broader understanding can be gained of the nuances in policy trajectories. Contrasting experiences in three case countries with close cultural and historical traditions further elucidate the nature of the framing activities of policy-makers around public participation and the boundary work around different practices that emerged. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Edna F Einsiedel & Mavis Jones & Meaghan Brierley, 2011. "Cultures, contexts and commitments in the governance of controversial technologies: US, UK and Canadian publics and xenotransplantation policy development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 619-628, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:38:y:2011:i:8:p:619-628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234211X13092649606440
    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. Jones, Mavis & Einsiedel, Edna, 2011. "Institutional policy learning and public consultation: The Canadian xenotransplantation experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 655-662, September.

    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:38:y:2011:i:8:p:619-628. 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.