IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v39y2012i1p105-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the role of official bioethics advice in the governance of biotechnologies in the EU: The European Group on Ethics' Opinion on commercial cord blood banking

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Mohr
  • Helen Busby
  • Tamara Hervey
  • Robert Dingwall

Abstract

In the early 1990s, the EU's proposed bioeconomic agenda provoked ethical concerns among its citizenry. In response to the political impasse between economic and ethical imperatives, as well as the perceived lack of democratic legitimacy, the EU established an expert bioethics advisory body, known as the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). Situated at the boundary between law, bioethics and economic policy, the EGE plays an ambiguous role in the governance of biotechnologies in the EU. To elucidate the nature of its role and influence, this paper considers the EGE as an integral element of a broader web of governance spanning EU and Member State institutions. Using as a case study the emerging controversy surrounding commercial cord blood banking, we explore whether the EGE and its ethical opinions on this matter have contributed to the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Mohr & Helen Busby & Tamara Hervey & Robert Dingwall, 2012. "Mapping the role of official bioethics advice in the governance of biotechnologies in the EU: The European Group on Ethics' Opinion on commercial cord blood banking," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 105-117, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:1:p:105-117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs003
    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:39:y:2012:i:1:p:105-117. 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.