IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v3y2013i1p2158244013478951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Kieran C. O’Doherty
  • Michael K. MacKenzie
  • Dan Badulescu
  • Michael M. Burgess

Abstract

RDX is an explosive that is also a neurotoxin and implicated in adverse health outcomes. Because of its widespread use in military and civilian operations, there is growing concern about potential environmental and health implications. One promising method of bioremediation involves genomic studies of soil microbes. These health concerns and technological issues intersect with social and political dimensions raising questions about public responses to genomic technologies and the degree of environmental accounting expected from the military. In cases of novel technologies entering into contested social spaces, public engagement can be useful to inform broader policy debates. Building on previous work, in this article, we outline the rationale, methods, and results of a public deliberation on these issues. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind on the issues of RDX pollution and microbial genomics, and thus provides an important baseline on public sentiment on these issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:1:p:2158244013478951
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244013478951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013478951
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244013478951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren, Mark E., 1996. "Deliberative Democracy and Authority," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 46-60, March.
    2. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    3. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    4. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    5. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Burgess, Michael M., 2012. "Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1604-1611.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baumann, Lisa Ann & Reinhold, Anna Katharina & Brütt, Anna Levke, 2022. "Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1023-1038.
    2. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    4. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    5. Mark E. Warren, 1999. "What is Political?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 207-231, April.
    6. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    7. Maureen Njue & Francis Kombe & Salim Mwalukore & Sassy Molyneux & Vicki Marsh, 2014. "What Are Fair Study Benefits in International Health Research? Consulting Community Members in Kenya," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Matilde Luna & José Luis Velasco, 2010. "Knowledge Networks: Integration Mechanisms and Performance Assessment," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    10. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    11. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    12. van der Dam, Sandra & Schols, Jos M.G.A. & Kardol, Tinie J.M. & Molewijk, Bert C. & Widdershoven, Guy A.M. & Abma, Tineke A., 2013. "The discovery of deliberation. From ambiguity to appreciation through the learning process of doing Moral Case Deliberation in Dutch elderly care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 125-132.
    13. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Byers Vivienne & Fahey Daragh & Mullins Carol & Roe Carol, 2017. "The Patient Survey Programme: Transforming the patient experience in Irish healthcare," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 65(4), pages 83-99, December.
    15. Gloria Nyambura Kenyatta, 2024. "Participatory Mechanisms that Transcend Classic Representation in Kenyan Counties," RAIS Conference Proceedings 2022-2024 0444, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    16. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    17. Luthardt, Ulf & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-88.
    18. Brown, Mark B., 2007. "Can technologies represent their publics?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 327-338.
    19. Hyman, Richard & Gumbrell-McCormick, Rebecca, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105078, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Kaisa Herne & Olli Lappalainen & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Accountability as a Warrant for Trust: An Experiment on Sanctions and Justifications in a Trust Game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 615-648, November.

    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:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:1:p:2158244013478951. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.