Die Sprache der Ethik und die Politik des richtigen Sprechens. Ethikregime in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien

Braun, Kathrin; Herrmann, Svea Luise; Könninger, Sabine; Moore, Alfred

doi:10.14361/9783839408346-009

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For recent discussions seeBurchell et al, 2009: Chilvers, 2008Einsiedel and Kamara, 2006;Felt and Fochler, 2008;Gottweis et al, 2008;Irwin, 2006;Lengwiler, 2008;Levidow, 2007;Stirling, 2008. 2 Note, however, that Jasanoff qualifies her call, arguing that formal mechanisms of participation alone will not suffice but that we need new institutional settings which encourage both citizens and experts to address uncertainties and the unknown. 3 SeeBraun et al, 2008;Frewer and Salter, 2007;Rowe and Frewer, 2004; Salter and Jones, 2002. 4 The issue areas under study were highly diverse, encompassing embryonic stem cell research, genetically modified organisms, food scares such as BSE, the protection of endangered species, and genetic testing, each case study referring to two or more European countries and/or levels of governance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that it is time for public understanding of science to develop a critical inventory of the forms, formats and methods of public participation and their respective implications and ambiguities. It highlights the need for analysing not only the limitations and deficiencies of participatory arrangements but also their constructive dimension, in particular the construction of the subject of participation. Looking into participatory governance arrangements in the issue area of genetic testing in Germany and the UK the paper presents a typology of formats according to the way the respective public is constructed and identifies four major constructions of publics: the general public, the pure public, the affected public and the partisan public. Each of these enables certain speaking positions while foreclosing others. The study shows that the main purposes of participatory arrangements in this issue area are knowledge production and education rather than political deliberation and decision-making.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethics has become a decisive level of reflection and legitimization for the regulation of fundamentally contested societal-political questions in a wide range of social spheres. One is almost tempted to claim that today ethics is the decisive semantic form in which governance discourses are being conducted (see also Braun et al 2008;Moore 2009). Some even argue that ethics and governance are today thought of as being as closely connected as ethics and technology were once thought to be (see von Schomberg 2007).…”

Section: Ethics and Governance: The ''Ethicization'' Of The Politicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Politics Deals with Expert Dissent: The Case of Ethics Councils

Bogner

Menz

2010

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over recent years, science and technology have been reassessed increasingly in ethical terms. Particularly for life science governance, ethics has become the dominant discourse. In the course of this ‘‘ethical turn’’ national ethics councils were set up throughout Europe and in the United States to advice politics in ethically controversial issues such as stem cell research and genetic testing. Ethics experts have become subject to traditional warnings against expertocracy: they are suspected to unduly influence political decision-making. However, any reliable ethics expertise has to reflect societal disagreements in moral issues. Therefore, expert dissent is a normal feature of legitimate ethics expertise. Based on theoretical considerations we argue that in principle, expert dissent does not cause problems for political legitimacy; rather, it enhances the salience of politics: obviously decisions on ethical issues cannot be taken on the basis of expert knowledge alone. We therefore conclude that expert dissent, not consent, supports politics. Focussing on Germany and Austria, we show how politics deal with expert dissent in practice. While in Germany politics acknowledge dissent and use it to foster a fundamental political debate, Austrian politics attribute authoritative power to ethics expertise and try to construct an overall consensus. This illustrates how the drawing of boundaries between politic and expertise differs.

show abstract

“…The framing of discussions of the ethical issues can thus marginalise certain kinds of voices – particularly the unruly, contentious voices (Dryzek, 2000) of partisan publics. The ethics frame demands a particular mode of discursive engagement with ethical issues, which has elsewhere been termed ‘proper talk’ (Braun et al. , 2008).…”

Section: Deliberation and Ethics Expertisementioning

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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Moore

2010

Political Studies

Self Cite

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

Die Sprache der Ethik und die Politik des richtigen Sprechens. Ethikregime in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

“… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements

“… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements

How Politics Deals with Expert Dissent: The Case of Ethics Councils

Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About