Advertisement

Democratizing Science: Expertise and Participation in Administrative Decision-Making

Chapter

Keywords

Precautionary Principle Genetically Modify Crop European Food Safety Authority Scientific Expertise Administrative Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Abels G, Bora A (2004) Demokratische Technikbewertung. BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  2. Black J (2001) Proceduralizing Regulation: Part II, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21: 33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodmer W (1985) Public Understanding of Science. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bora A (1996) Inklusion und Differenzierung. Bedingungen und Folgen der „Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung“ im Recht. In: van den Daele W, Neidhardt F (eds) Kommunikation und Entscheidung. Berlin, pp 371–406Google Scholar
  5. Bora A (1999) Differenzierung und Inklusion. Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucchi M (1998) Science and the Media. Alternative routes in scientific communication. LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Entscheidung vom 19. Dezember 1985, Amtliche Entscheidungssammlung 72: 300-332Google Scholar
  8. Buonanno L, Zablotney S, Keefer R (2001) Politics versus Science in the Making of a New Regulatory Regime for Food in Europe, European Integration online Papers, vol 5, no 12Google Scholar
  9. Commission of the EC, European Governance, A White Paper, COM (2001) 428 endg.,Brussels 2001Google Scholar
  10. Daum A (2002) Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert. MünchenGoogle Scholar
  11. Elam M, Bertilson M (2003) Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science. The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship, European Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 233–251Google Scholar
  12. Epp A (1998) Divergierende Konzepte von „Verfahrensgerechtigkeit“. Eine Kritik der Procedural Justice Forschung. In: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, Discussion Papers FS II, pp 98–302. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Grant CB (2004) Uncertain Communications: Uncertain Social Systems. Soziale Systeme 10: 217–232Google Scholar
  14. Gregory J, Miller St (1998) Science in Public. Communication, Culture, and Credibility CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Harremoes P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Guedes Vaz B (eds) (2002) Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century. Late Lessons from early Warnings. LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. House of Lords (2002) Select Committee on Science and Technology, 3rd Report. Science and Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Japp KP (2000) Risiko. BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  18. Kent J (2003) Lay Experts and the politics of breast implants. Public Understanding of Science 12: 403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladeur KH (2003) The Introduction of the Precautionary Principle into EU Law: A Pyrrhic Victory for Environmental and Public Health Law? Decision-Making under Conditions of Complexity in Multi-Level Political Systems. Common Market Law Review 40: 1455–1479Google Scholar
  20. Liberatore A, Funtowicz S (2000) ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy 30(3): 146–150Google Scholar
  21. Luhmann N (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  22. Luhmann N (1991) Soziologie des Risikos. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Welden S (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE Research Project, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller St (2000) Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads, paper prepared for conference on: Science Communication, Education and the History of Science. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-Thinking Science. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowotny H (2005) The Changing Nature of Public Science. In this volume: 1Google Scholar
  27. Pestre D (2005) The technosciences between markets, social worries and the political: how to imagine a better future? In this volume: 29Google Scholar
  28. Report of the Working Group (2001) “Democratizing Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems”. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. Roqueplo P (1995) Scientific expertise among political powers, administrations and public opinion. Science and Public Policy 22: 175–182Google Scholar
  30. Scherzberg A (2004) Risikosteuerung durch Verwaltungsrecht: Ermöglichung oder Begrenzung von Innovationen. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 63: 214–258Google Scholar
  31. Schulze-Fielitz H (2005) Responses of the Legal Order to the Loss of Trust in Science. In this volume: 63Google Scholar
  32. Shaw A (2002) “It just goes against the grain.” Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 11: 273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stehr N (2003) Wissenspolitik. FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  34. Stichweh R (2003) The multiple public of Science: Inclusion and Popularization. Soziale Systeme 9: 210–220Google Scholar
  35. Trute HH (2003) From Past to Future Risk — From Private to Public Law. In: European Review of Public Law 15: 73–103Google Scholar
  36. Trute HH (2004) Methodik der Herstellung und Darstellung verwaltungsrechtlicher Entscheidungen, in: Schmidt-Aßmann E, Hoffmann-Riem W (eds) Methoden der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft. Baden-Baden, pp 293–327Google Scholar
  37. Trute HH (2005) Comment: from a Legal Perspective, In this volume: 53Google Scholar
  38. Weingart P (1999) Scientific Expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26: 151–161Google Scholar
  39. Weingart P (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit. WeilerswistGoogle Scholar
  40. van Zwanenberg P, Millstone E (2000) Beyond Sceptical Relativism: Evaluating the Social Constructions of Expert Risk Assessments, in: Science, Technology & Human Values 25: 259–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin · Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations