“… But you Cannot Influence the Direction of your Thinking”: Guiding Self-Government in Bioethics Policy Discourse

Herrmann, Svea Luise; Könninger, Sabine

doi:10.1016/s1057-6290(07)09008-0

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if it is hoped that public bioethics can provide a new form of deliberative democratic legitimation for scientific governance and forestall the kind of politicisation that characterised the policy gridlock over genetically modified organisms, then the narrowing of ethical discussion may be counterproductive, and it may then be necessary to seek ways of integrating critical civil society and partisan positions in order to further develop robust and mixed discursive spheres. Braun et al, 2009;Herrmann and Koenninger, 2008. 1 In July 2007 the HGC had 2 formally trained moral philosophers (from 19 members), the HFEA 2 (from 19), the NCB 4 (from 18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Moore

2010

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to specify the dynamics of the democratisation of expertise by analysing public bioethics as a form of deliberative democracy. Public bioethics refers to the whole range of bodies and procedures, such as national ethics councils, parliamentary ethics commissions or public consultations on ‘ethical issues’, which are meant to inform and guide political decision making with respect to ethical considerations. The article draws from empirical research on three UK public bioethics bodies (the Human Genetics Commission, Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority). The article will show how public bioethics addresses some established problems of expert domination and rejects the aim of revealing substantial ethical unity in favour of facilitating and preparing public debate by representing the range of ethical positions on a particular issue, and as such seems to resemble more closely the ‘mixed’ discursive spheres advocated by Hendriks. However, the article argues that problems of expertise are transformed but not removed. By assuming the authority to categorise different publics and arrange them in a hierarchy, and framing ethical questions such that some kinds of concerns appear legitimately ethical while others are merely political or transient matters of public concern, public bioethics may be reproducing problems of expert domination at the more rarefied level of the construction of ethical positions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowledge, Values and Decision-Making Process in the UK, Germany and France’, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (funding code 06SPR31). See Braun et al , 2008; Braun et al , 2009; Herrmann and Koenninger, 2008.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Moore

2010

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge, Values and Decision-Making Process in the UK, Germany and France" forming part of the Science Policy Initiative that was coordinated by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science and Humanities and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (funding code 06SPR31). See Braun et al (2008), Braun (2006), Herrmann and Koenninger (2008). 2 Kelly (2003) and Leinhos (2005) based their analyses on the examples of the US Human Embryo Research Panel and the US National Bioethics Advisory Commission respectively.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public bioethics and public engagement: the politics of “proper talk”

Moore

2009

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses notions of "public talk" and "regulation as facilitation" to develop an account of public bioethics in the UK as a form of scientific governance, drawing on document analysis and expert interviews. First, this article will show the "ethical" problematization of scientific governance in the UK through the emergence of the Human Genetics Commission (HGC), Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB), and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Second, it will argue that an "ethical" model has emerged alongside and partially displaced a "technical" model of expertise in scientific governance. The article will introduce the notion of "proper talk," a set of techniques for facilitating ethical debate, characterized by the active elicitation of public engagement and the inclusion of emotions and subjectivity. The article then questions whether the authority to categorize publics and identify "proper" ethical positions reintroduces problems of expertise in a new form.

show abstract

Ethical Reflection Must Always be Measured

Braun

Herrmann

Könninger

et al. 2010

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article analyses what we term governmental ethics regimes as forms of scientific governance. Drawing from empirical research on governmental ethics regimes in Germany, Franceand the UK since the early 1980s, it argues that these governmental ethics regimes grew out of the technical model of scientific governance, but have departed from it in crucial ways. It asks whether ethics regimes can be understood as new ''technologies of humility'' (Jasanoff) and answers the question with a ''yes, but''. Yes, governmental ethics regimes have incorporated features that go beyond technologies of prediction and control, but the overcoming of the technical model also bears some ambivalence that needs to be understood. The article argues that governmental ethics regimes can be understood as a form of ''reflexive government'' (Dean) in that the commitment to techno-scientific innovation is stabilized not through an elitist, technocratic exclusion of non-scientific

show abstract

“… But you Cannot Influence the Direction of your Thinking”: Guiding Self-Government in Bioethics Policy Discourse

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Public bioethics and public engagement: the politics of “proper talk”

Ethical Reflection Must Always be Measured

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About