Abstract
Biotechnology, whether applied to plants, animals, or humans is a rapidly expanding industry. Citizens, often organized in groups or organizations, wish to express their views and even to participate in the decision-making process that authorized to the marketing of new biotechnology derived products. In order to allow participation of the public in the debate on the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology, it is important to select appropriate consultation mechanisms. Much may be learned from the experiences and mechanisms used in various countries.
Part I of this report surveys various institutional models for public consultation activities. Part II then reviews various mechanisms used to address ethical and social issues with public participation and Part III highlights the strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms in a Canadian context.
Thérèse Leroux is a Professor and Researcher (E-mail. leroux@crdp.umontreal.ca), Marie Hirtle a Research Associate (E-mail: hirtle@droit.umontreal.ca), and Louis-Nicolas Fortin a Research Assistant (E-mail: fortinni@crdp.umontreal.ca) at the Centre de recherche en droit public, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, P.O. Box 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Canada H3C 3J7.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Algoud, D., & Joly, P. B. (1995). SOS plantes transgéniques, Une nouvelle filière en péril. Biofutur, pp. 23–26.
Aubry, J.-M., & Saint-Arnaud, Y. (1975). Dynamique des groupes. Ottawa: Editions de l’Homme.
Barbot, J. (1994). Que pensent les Européens des biotechnologies. Biofutur, pp. 30–33.
Byk, C. (1993). Comité consultatif national d’éthique. In: Dictionnaire Permanent Bioéthique et Biotechnologie, pp. 265–290B. Montrouge, France: Éditions législatives.
Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy (U.K.) (1992). Clothier Report on the ethics of gene therapy. London: HMSO.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment (1984). Human gene therapy. OTA-BP-BA-32. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment (1987). New developments in biotechnology 2: Background paper — Public perception of biotechnology. OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment (1992). Cystic fibrosis and DNA tests: Implications of carrier screening. OTA-BA-532. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Danish Council of Ethics (1992a). 4th Annual Report 1991. Copenhagen: Danish Medical Research Council.
Danish Council of Ethics (1992b). Public discussion about bioethics activities. Copenhagen: Danish Medical Research Council.
Danish Council of Ethics (1995). 7th Annual Report 1994. Copenhagen: Danish Medical Research Council.
de Chenay, A., & Therre, H. (1995). L’information du public: Un droit et une nécessité. Biofutur, 38–42.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1995). Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? British Food Journal, 97(8), 31–36.
Glasmeier, A. (1995). Consensus conferences, the media, and public information in the Netherlands. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 67–73. London: Science Museum.
Grundahl, J. (1995). The Danish consensus conference model. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 31–40. London: Science Museum.
Hallman, W. K. (1996). Public perceptions of biotechnology: Another look. Bio/Technology, 14, 35.
Hamon, L. (1979). Information et gouvernement. In: J. Antoine et al. (Eds.), L’information, pp. 71–96. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
Hoban, T. J. (1997). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international per-pective. Nature Biotechnology, 15, 232–234.
Hornig, P. S. (1994). Structuring public debate on biotechnology. Science Communication, 16, 166–179.
House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology (1995). Third Report, Human genetics: The science and its consequences. London: House of Commons.
House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology (1996). Third Report, Human Genetics: The Government’s response. London: House of Commons.
Jacobs, S., & Korhonen, J. (1995). Opening up regulation. OECD Observer, 195, 29.
Jank, B. (1995). Biotechnology in European society. Trends in Biotechnology, 13, 42–44.
Josefsson, J. (1996). The Nordic Committee on Bioethics. In: World Congress of Bioethics, San Francisco, USA, November 22–\24, p. 31. San Francisco.
Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 89–108. London: Science Museum.
Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1994). Consensus conferences: A review of the Danish, Dutch, and U.K. approaches to this special form of technology assessment, and an assessment of the options for a proposed Swiss consensus conference. London: Science Museum.
Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.) (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
Lee, G. (1995). A consensus conference from the point of view of a lay-panel member. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 81–86. London: Science Museum.
Leroux, T., Le Bris, S., & Knoppers, B. M. (1998). The feasability of a National Canadian Ethics Advisory Committee: Points to consider. In: Canada Health Action: Building on the legacy, Vol. 5. pp. 439–644. Ottawa: National Forum on Health.
Macer, D. (1992). Attitudes to genetic engineering: Japanese and international comparisons. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute.
Macer, D. (1994). Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 23–33.
Marsh, C., & Fraser, C. (1989). Public opinion and nuclear weapons. London: Macmillan.
Mayer, I. S., de Vries, J., & Geurts, J. (1996). Effects of participation: A Quasiexperimental evaluation of a consensus conference on human genetics research. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
National Biotechnology Network (1997). Canadian biotechnology: Diverse and dynamic. Biotech Liaison, 2(1), 1–2.
NENT (1995). Årsmelding 1994. Oslo: National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi).
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1992). Annual Report 1991–92. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Rathenau Institute (1995a). The Rathenau Institute and the debate, Annual Report 1994. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
Rathenau Institute (1995b). Report to Parliament, Predictive research, where are we going? The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
Report of the review of the role and functioning of Institutional Ethics Committees (1996). Report to the Ministry for Health and Family Services, March 1996, Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service.
Sclove, R. E. (1996). Town meetings on technology. Technology Review, 99(5), 24.
Tremblay, G. (1991), L’opinion publique. In: M. Beauchamp (Ed.), Communication publique et société repères pour la réflexion et l’action, pp. 149–181. Boucherville, Québec: Gaëtan Morin Éditeur.
U.S.-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research (1992). Methods of communicating biotechnology with the public, Final Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology.
Verrall, M. (1994). Lay panel back gene-modified plants but urge stricter monitoring. Nature, 372, 122.
Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M., & Hoban, T. (1994). Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology, 48(11), 71–77.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leroux, T., Hirtle, M., Fortin, LN. (1998). An Overview of Public Consultation Mechanisms Developed to Address the Ethical and Social Issues Raised by Biotechnology. In: Knoppers, B.M., Mathios, A.D. (eds) Biotechnology and the Consumer. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5311-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5311-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5541-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5311-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive