Abstract
In cases of intractable disagreement about complex issues such as biotechnology, governments are faced with the need to make regulatory decisions. One way in which governments have sought to make expedient decisions in the face of public disquiet and persistent moral disagreement is to delegate the decision-making process to a politically independent committee. Committees have been established as a way to respond to the increasing call for more public deliberation. This move can be regarded as an attempt to depoliticise the problem. When we delegate decision-making to an expert committee we assume that we are dealing particularly with scientific uncertainty, rather than normative uncertainty. The hypothesis of this chapter is that committees that acknowledge that normative uncertainty exists as well should be able to deal better with intractable disagreement than committees that do not. A double comparative analysis is made between two biotechnology ethics committees, the Committee for Animal Biotechnology (CAB) in the Netherlands, and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee (GTEC) in Australia. The hypothesis of the chapter turns out to be correct to a certain extent; the debate both within the CAB and between the CAB and the public did appear to be more open and respectful than that of the GTEC. While in both countries citizens were disillusioned with their lack of influence and this could lead to more intractability, in the Netherlands at least the dialogue was kept open between regulators, opponents and proponents of animal biotechnology. In Australia there appeared to be more lobbying and influence from the biotechnology industry and more suspicion of vested interests by the key players. It can be concluded that the political culture of each country was highly influential in shaping regulation, the decision-making process itself, and responses to it. The decision to delegate decision-making to an ‘independent’ committee of experts, therefore, may be an attempt to depoliticise the conflict, but in reality fails to do so. What, then, is the proper role of an ethics committee? Committees should have a role in ensuring that ethics is incorporated in the decision-making process. However, they should not have the final say in decisions, but should primarily provide expert accounts for the benefit of both the public and political debate. In other words, the buck of making decisions should not be passed to committees; decisions should be made in the political arena, on the basis of a public debate that involves a broader public and in which the committee provides input. In light of these criticisms it can be concluded that the committee system is not the most appropriate way of giving shape to the call for more public deliberation in situations of intractable disagreement.
Humphrey: “I am fully seized of your aims and of course I will do my utmost to see that they are put into practice”.
Minister: “Good…..”
Humphrey: “And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with very broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we will be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision on the basis of long term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitated and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions”.
Minister: “You mean, ‘no’”.
Yes Minister (BBC): Doing the Honours
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
Notes
- 1.
After all, even a decision not to regulate a certain controversial issue requires a choice by government.
- 2.
It should be noted that consensus in this context does not refer to the Habermasian notion of consensus, but refers more to a process of accommodation and compromise; rather than a decision that is ‘wholehearted’ and in the common interest, it refers to a decision that is supported by all important players. I would like to thank Bert van den Brink for bringing this to my attention.
- 3.
Herman Bakvis (1984), page 315.
- 4.
For example, the French Huguenots, Seardic Jews from Portugal, and Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe found refuge and free thinkers such as Spinoza and Descartes were also welcome in the Netherlands. Johannes J.M. Van Delden, Jaap J.F. Visser, and Els Borst-Eilers (2004).
- 5.
Lijphart argues that this pillarisation has two dimensions, a primary religious, and a secondary class dimension, which has created fragmentation of Dutch society into four main blocks: a liberal block, which is secular and consists of middle and upper-middle class groups, a socialist block, which is also secular, but mainly working-class, and a Catholic and a Protestant block, which cut across class differences. Arend Lijphart (1975).
- 6.
Hans Daalder (1995).
- 7.
Arend Lijphart and Markus Crepaz (1991).
- 8.
Koos Van der Bruggen (1999).
- 9.
Gutteling (2002), page 137.
- 10.
Hindmarsh (1994), page 106.
- 11.
- 12.
Wibren Van der Burg (1998).
- 13.
Interview with member of interest group on 11/2/2005.
- 14.
See I.H. Burnley (ed.) (1974).
- 15.
Paula and Birrer (2006).
- 16.
Hindmarsh (1994).
- 17.
As I already briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, advocates of the ‘product approach’ argue that an estimation of health risks can only be based on examination of the components of the food consumed, whereas advocates of the ‘process’ approach argue that all products created using GMOs in the production-process should be labelled, since it is often the process that the consumer is concerned about and not merely the end-product.
- 18.
Hindmarsh (1994), pages 267–280.
- 19.
Ibid., page 271.
- 20.
Ibid., page 401.
- 21.
Richard Hindmarsh and Kees Hulsman (1992).
- 22.
Hans Löfgren and Mats Benner (2003), pages 34–35.
- 23.
Löfgren and Benner argue that ‘state intervention premised on partnerships with business, for the purpose of facilitating technology development and innovation, is now a central theme in Australian policy deliberations’. Ibid., page 30.
- 24.
Respondents displayed more moral qualms about cross-species gene transfer and the genetic engineering of humans or the transfer of human genes into other organisms than with genetic engineering of animals, and they had even less moral problems with plant biotechnology. Norton, Lawrence, and Wood (1998).
- 25.
J.J. Beun et al., Ibid., pages 164–167.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/cf/subquestion_en.cfm (accessed on March 24, 2009). This observation is supported by the Eurobarometer.
- 28.
Brom (1997).
- 29.
Huub Schellekens (1993).
- 30.
Egbert Schroten (1999), page 260.
- 31.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (1998).
- 32.
Now the Minister for Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation.
- 33.
Animal Health and Welfare Law (1997). Ethicists will be quick to point out that b) should state ‘no other moral objections’. However, this is the text as laid down in the Act.
- 34.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology, ‘Annual Report’, Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1997 # 5, Besluit van 9 December 1996.
- 35.
Lino E. Paula (2001). See also the Explanatory Memorandum of the Decree of Animal Biotechnology.
- 36.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (1998).
- 37.
Frans W.A. Brom et al. (1996).
- 38.
A full list of divided issues within the CAB can be found in Paula (2008), page 81. At the time of writing, only two applications had been rejected and the rest had received a positive recommendation, albeit often subject to conditions, such as a time limit for the research. The reason for rejecting one application was that the research was regarded as premature at that point in time in the context of the overall research program of the applicant. The other was rejected because the researchers failed to provide additional information as requested by the committee. A few applications were withdrawn during the review process.
- 39.
Personal communication with a member of an animal protection association.
- 40.
Monica Seini (2004), page 194.
- 41.
See Edna F. Einsiedel, Erling Jelsøe, and Thomas Breck (2001).
- 42.
‘Under the mirror legislation of States, it is possible for state governments to call GM-free zones based on marketing grounds’. See http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news (accessed on April 20, 2005).
- 43.
At the time of writing, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania all have bans in place and the latter also has a ban on GM animals. The conditions in Queensland and the Northern Territory are unsuitable to growing GM canola. See http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news (accessed on April 20, 2005) and http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008 (accessed on February 27, 2009). One reason for this divergence might be that the premiers of all state governments are from the Australian Labour Party, whereas the federal government is a Liberal/National Party coalition.
- 44.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Environment and Heritage; Health and Ageing; Industry, Tourism and Resources; and Science Education and Training. See http://www.biotechnology.gov.au (accessed on April 22, 2005).
- 45.
As stated on their website: http://www.biotechnology.gov.au.
- 46.
Chin (2000), note 41.
- 47.
All quotes are from the brochure ‘Juggling Genes’.
- 48.
Prior to the establishment of the OGTR biotechnology research in Australia was monitored by the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC), established in 1987. However, compliance to GMAC guidelines was not compulsory. While the OGTR regulates gene technology research and development, regulation of the final use of genetically modified organisms is the responsibility of product-specific regulating agencies, such as the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) in the case of food and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in the field of medicine. This regulatory framework has been criticised on the grounds that the end-use agencies such as ANZFA do not possess sufficient expertise to adequately assess the risks of releasing GMOs into the environment. See M. Hain, C. Cocklin, and D. Gibbs (June 2002).
- 49.
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/gtecgtccc-1 (accessed on August 6, 2009).
- 50.
From: http://www.biotechnology.gov.au (accessed on April 22, 2005).
- 51.
Löfgren and Benner (2003), page 34.
- 52.
Interview with a committee member on 10/04/2005.
- 53.
Paula (2001), page 42.
- 54.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (2001).
- 55.
Albert Meijer et al. (2005).
- 56.
Albert Meijer et al. (2006).
- 57.
Meijer et al. (2005), page 14.
- 58.
See Bernice Bovenkerk and Lonneke M. Poort (2008).
- 59.
This difference between the gradual and absolute versions of integrity is explored in more detail in Bovenkerk, Brom, and Van Den Bergh (2002).
- 60.
Paula (2001).
- 61.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (2001).
- 62.
- 63.
Meijer et al. (2005).
- 64.
Albert Jacob Meijer and Frans W.A. Brom (2008).
- 65.
Interviews with several committee members on 3/4/2005, 5/4/2005 and 7/4/2005.
- 66.
Chin (2000).
- 67.
Renato Schibeci, Jeff Harwood, and Heather Dietrich (March 2006), page 442.
- 68.
Interview with committee member on 10/03/2005.
- 69.
Chin (2000).
- 70.
Ibid.
- 71.
Ibid.
- 72.
Schibeci, Harwood, and Dietrich (2006).
- 73.
Drawn from interviews with committee members on 10/03/2005 and 10/04/2005.
- 74.
Interview with member of interest group on 11/2/2005.
- 75.
Renato Schibeci and Jeffrey Harwood (2007).
- 76.
Interview with committee member on 10/3/2005.
- 77.
Levidow and Carr (1997).
- 78.
Ibid. Fern Wickson gives other examples to substantiate the claim that GTEC is awarded less importance and influence the GTTAC. For example, while GTEC was in the process of writing a report on the ethics of transkingdom crosses, the Regulator had already approved licences for such procedures. Wickson (2006).
- 79.
Interviews with committee members on 10/3/2005, 10/4/2005 and 8/4/2005.
- 80.
Wickson (2006), page 151.
- 81.
Ibid.
- 82.
This point has also been raised by animal protection associations. See Paula (2001), page 72.
- 83.
The follow up research is dealt with by AEC’s. Moreover, the CAB’s recommendations exclude imported genetically modified animals.
- 84.
Paula (2001), page 75.
- 85.
Interview with committee member on 3/4/2003.
- 86.
For example, some argue that the use of animals in medical experiments leads to an instrumentalisation of the animals involved. In their eyes, instrumentalisation is a matter of degrees; each further use of animals brings them closer to being instruments solely created for our use. See Brom (1997). Separating the review of animal experiments through animal experimentation committees (AEC’s) and that of the actual creation of transgenic animals in the CAB does not seem to do justice to this cumulative effect. Taken on its own, a specific case might not seem to be quite as morally objectionable as when it is regarded as part of an overall trend. Paula (2001), page 79.
- 87.
Personal communication with the chairman of the CAB.
- 88.
Interviews with committee members on 2/4/2003 and 6/4/2003.
- 89.
Lino Paula and Tjard De Cock Buning (2000), page 1517. In later years, violation of integrity has been considered serious in some applications, but this has not been sufficient reason to reject them.
- 90.
Drawn from personal experience.
- 91.
Interview with committee member on 6/4/2003.
- 92.
Interviews with committee members on 10/3/2005 and 8/4/2005.
- 93.
C. Lawson (2002).
- 94.
In his eyes, this shows that the pretension of scientific objectivity in risk assessment and management is incorrect, because the decision to allow certain low probability risks is value-laden and can be disputed. Ibid.
- 95.
Langdon Winner (1986).
- 96.
Lawson (2002), pages 203–204.
- 97.
The Act states in note 15, pages 18104–18105, that ‘there is no doubt that biotechnology holds great potential for this country. In terms of health, agriculture, industry, primary production and the environmental benefits we have seen only the prelude to the possibilities… For Australia to lose the benefits of this technology when we are able to manage those risks would be an irresponsible and unsupportable step for government to take’.
- 98.
- 99.
Interview with committee member on 10/3/2005 and see Schibeci, Harwood, and Dietrich (2006).
- 100.
Kerry Ross (2007).
- 101.
Ibid., Wickson (2006).
- 102.
Hain, Cocklin, and Gibbs (2002).
- 103.
Ross (2007).
- 104.
Wickson (2006).
- 105.
- 106.
See Scott and Carr (2003).
- 107.
See Deckers (2005).
- 108.
Ibid.
- 109.
Ulrich Beck (1992).
- 110.
Kees Hulsman (2002), np.
- 111.
Hindmarsh (1994). Co-optation means rendering opposition harmless by making dissenting voices take part in the decision-making process and thereby making them responsible for the collectively reached decisions.
- 112.
Deckers (2005), page 458, note 6.
- 113.
Paula (2001), page 46.
- 114.
Ibid., page 48.
- 115.
Ibid., page 47. This is supported in my own interviews with committee members on 5/4/2003 and 6/4/2003.
- 116.
- 117.
Paula (2001).
- 118.
At first between 10 and 20 people would show up to consultations, later usually less than 10, and sometimes consultations were cancelled because of lack of interest. Meijer et al. (2005), page 20.
- 119.
Other issues were ‘alternatives to animal biotechnology’ and ‘the value of a power free dialogue’.
- 120.
Tatjana Visak and Franck L.B. Meijboom (2002).
- 121.
- 122.
Interviews with committee members on 3/4/2003 and 8/4/2003. See also Meijer et al. (2005).
- 123.
Ibid.
- 124.
Interview with committee member on 2/4/2003.
- 125.
Meijer et al. (2005), page 26.
- 126.
Visak and Meijboom (2002).
- 127.
Examples of cases were the creation of shrimps that did not cause allergic reactions and the use of biotechnology to bring back extinct species.
- 128.
Visak and Meijboom (2003b).
- 129.
Paula (2001), page 66.
- 130.
Wickson (2006).
- 131.
Ibid., pages 165 and 182.
- 132.
Ibid., page 166.
- 133.
Interviews with committee members on 10/3/2005 and 10/4/2005.
- 134.
Of course, many would argue we are all stakeholders when it comes to genetic modification, as the whole (human and non-human) community is affected by developments in this field. By stakeholders here I mean organised groups who have a direct interest in genetic modification.
- 135.
See http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/committee/gtccmembers.pdf (accessed on September 27, 2006).
- 136.
Jan Vorstenbosch (2000), page 1485.
- 137.
Wickson (2006), page 176.
- 138.
Ibid.
- 139.
Hain, Cocklin, and Gibbs (2002).
- 140.
Interview with committee member on 10/4/2005.
- 141.
Public consultation is characterised by a one-way top-down information flow from government to the public, whereas public participation entails a ‘two-way exchange of information between decision-makers and the public’. See Ross (2007).
- 142.
Ibid.
- 143.
These include issues that one would expect to be the OGTR’s responsibility, such as ‘safety and labelling of GM foods’ and ‘herbicide use and resistance management’. Ibid., page 216.
- 144.
- 145.
Ross (2007).
- 146.
Wickson (2006), page 182.
- 147.
Gene Rowe and Lynn J. Frewer (2000), page 18.
- 148.
See Bovenkerk and Poort (2008).
References
Animal Health and Welfare Law (1997), ‘Animal Health and Welfare Law, article 66, subsection 1’.
Bakvis, Herman (1984), ‘Toward a Political Economy of Consociationalism. A Commentary on Marxist Views of Pillarization in the Netherlands’, Comparative Politics, 16 (3), 315–334.
Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).
Beun, J.J. et al. (1998), ‘Biotechnology in The Netherlands’, Australasian Biotechnology, 8 (3), 164–167.
Bovenkerk, Bernice and Poort, Lonneke M. (2008), ‘The Role of Ethics Committees in Public Debate’, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22 (1), 19–35.
Bovenkerk, Bernice, Brom, Frans W.A., and Van den Bergh, Babs J. (2002), ‘Brave New Birds. The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics’, The Hastings Center Report, 32 (1), 16–22.
Brom, Frans W.A. (1997), Onherstelbaar verbeterd. Biotechnologie bij dieren als een moreel probleem (Irrepairibly Improved. Animal Biotechnology as a Moral Problem) (Utrecht: University of Utrecht).
Brom, Frans W.A., Hilhorst, M.T., Meulen, Ter, Vorstenbosch, R.H.J., and Jan, M.G. (1996), Het Toetsen van biotechnologische handelingen bij dieren. Rapport van een commissie van externe deskundigen ten behoeve van de Commissie Biotechnologie bij Dieren (Assessing Biotechnological Procedures with Animals. Report of a committee of external experts for the Committee for Animal Biotechnology) (Utrecht: Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden). http://www.rda.nl/home/31?highlight=toetsen+van+biotechnologische+handelingen+bij+dieren#[180]
Burnley, I.H. (ed.) (1974), Urbanization in Australia. The Post-war Experience (London: Cambridge University Press).
Chin, Geraldine (2000), ‘The Role of Public Participation in the Genetically Modified Organisms Debate’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 17 (6), 519.
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (1998), Annual Report (Utrecht: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries).
Committee for Animal Biotechnology (2001), Self-Evaluation (Utrecht: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries).
Daalder, Hans (1995), Van Oude en Nieuwe Regenten. Politiek in Nederland (Of Old and New Regents. Politics in the Netherlands) (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker).
Deckers, Jan (2005), ‘Are Scientists Right and Non-scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 5 (18), 451–478.
Einsiedel, Edna F., Jelsøe, Erling, and Breck, Thomas (2001), ‘Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83–98.
Emy, Hugh V. and Hughes, Owen E. (1991), Australian Politics: Realities in Conflict (Second edn.; South Melbourne: McMillan Education Australia Pty Ltd).
Gutteling, Jan M. (2002), ‘Biotechnology in the Netherlands: Controversy or Consensus?’ Public Understanding of Science, 11, 131–142.
Hain, M., Cocklin, C., and Gibbs, D. (2002), ‘Regulating Biosciences: The Gene Technology Act 2000’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 19 (3), 163–179.
Hindmarsh, Richard (1994), ‘Power Relations, Social-Ecocentrism, and Genetic Engineering: Agro-Biotechnology in the Australian Context’, Doctoral Thesis (Griffith University).
Hindmarsh, Richard (2001), ‘Constructing Bio-Utopia: Laying Foundations Amidst Dissent’, in Richard Hindmarsh and Geoffrey Lawrence (eds.), Altered Genes II. The Future? (Melbourne: Scribe Publications), 36–53.
Hindmarsh, Richard and Hulsman, Kees (1992), ‘Gene Technology: The Threat or the Glory?’ New Scientist (Australian Supplement), 25 April, 4.
Hulsman, Kees (2002), ‘The Role of Science in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms’, Environment, Culture, and Community (Brisbane).
Lawson, C. (2002), ‘Risk Assessment in the Regulation of Gene Technology Under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (Cth)’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 19 (3), 195–216.
Levidow, Les and Carr, Susan (1997), ‘How Biotechnology Regulation Sets a Risk/Ethics Boundary’, Agriculture and Human Values, 14 (1), 29–43.
Lijphart, Arend (1975), The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Lijphart, Arend and Crepaz, Markus (1991), ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries’, British Journal of Political Science, 21, 235–246.
Löfgren, Hans and Benner, Mats (2003), ‘Biotechnology and Governance in Australia and Sweden: Path Dependency or Institutional Convergence?’ Australian Journal of Political Science, 38 (1), 25–43.
Meijer, Albert Jacob and Brom, Frans W.A. (2008), ‘Biotechnology and Social Learning: An Empirical Analysis of the Dutch Animal Biotechnology Act’, Technology in Society, 31 (1), 117–124.
Meijer, Albert et al. (2005), Evaluatie van het Besluit Biotechnologie bij Dieren (Evaluation of the Decree of Animal Biotechnology) (Utrecht: Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs-en Organisatiewetenschap, Ethiek Instituut).
Meijer, Albert et al. (2006), Besluit Biotechnologie bij Dieren: maatschappelijk leerproces? (Decree of Animal Biotechnology: Social Learning Process?) (Utrecht: Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs-en Organisatiewetenschap, Ethiek Instituut).
Miliband, Ralph (1989), Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Newton, Kenneth (1969), The Sociology of British Communism (London: Allen Lane).
Norton, Janet, Lawrence, Geoffrey, and Wood, Graham (1998), ‘Australian Public’s Perception of Genetically-Engineered Foods’, Australasian Biotechnology, 8 (3), 172–181.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999), Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics).
Paula, Lino E. (2001), Biotechnologie bij dieren ethisch getoetst? Een onderzoek naar het functioneren van het Besluit Biotechnologie bij Dieren (Animal Biotechnology Ethically Evaluated? An Analysis of the Functioning of the Decree for Animal Biotechnology) (The Hague: Rathenau Instituut).
Paula, Lino (2008), Ethics Committees, Public Debate and Regulation: An Evaluation of Policy Instruments in Bioethics Governance (Amsterdam: Free University).
Paula, Lino and Birrer, Frans (2006), ‘Including Public Perspectives in Industrial Biotechnology and the Biobased Economy’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 253–267.
Paula, Lino and De Cock Buning, Tjard (2000), ‘Governmental Review and Decision Making in Ethics: A Study of the Working Practices of the Dutch National Committee on Animal Biotechnology’, in Michael Balls, A.M. Van Zeller, and M.E. Halder (eds.), Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science), 1505–1518.
Rogers, Nicole (2002), ‘Seeds, Weeds and Greed: An Analysis of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth), Its Effect on Property Rights, and the Legal and Policy Dimensions of a Constitutional Challenge’, Macquarie Law Journal, 2, 1–30.
Ross, Kerry (2007), ‘Providing “Thoughtful Feedback”: Public Participation in the Regulation of Australia’s First Genetically Modified Food Crop’, Science and Public Policy, 34 (3), 213–225.
Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J. (2000), ‘Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25 (1), 3–29.
Schellekens, Huub (1993), De DNA-Makers (The DNA-Makers) (Maastricht/Brussel: Natuur & Techniek).
Schibeci, Renato and Harwood, Jeffrey (2007), ‘Stimulating Authentic Community Involvement in Biotechnology Policy in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 16, 245–255.
Schibeci, Renato, Harwood, Jeff, and Dietrich, Heather (2006), ‘Community Involvement in Biotechnology Policy? The Australian Experience’, Science Communication, 27 (3), 429–445.
Schroten, Egbert (1999), ‘Consensus Formation in Bioethics’, Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, 4, 259–266.
Scott, Maggie and Carr, Susan (2003), ‘Cultural Theory and Plural Rationalities: Perspectives on GM Among UK Scientists’, Innovation, 16 (4), 349–368.
Seini, Monica (2004), ‘Commodification and Access. Biotechnology and Australia’s Indigenous Flora’, in Richard Hindmarsh and Geoffrey Lawrence (eds.), Recoding Nature. Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering (Sydney: UNSW Press), 192–205.
Van Delden, Johannes J.M., Visser, Jaap J.F., and Borst-Eilers, Els (2004), ‘Thirty Years of Experience with Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Focussing on the Patient as a Person’, in T. Quill and M. Battin (eds.), Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care and Patient Choice (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press), 202–216.
Van der Bruggen, Koos (1999), ‘Dolly and Polly in the Polder: Debating the Dutch Debate on Cloning’, The Public Debate on Cloning: International Experiences (The Hague: Rathenau Institute), 16–17.
Van der Burg, Wibren (1998), ‘Beliefs, Persons and Practices: Beyond Tolerance’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1, 227–254.
Visak, Tatjana and Meijboom, Franck L.B. (2002), Integriteit van dieren: Bouwsteen of Struikelblok? Verslag van de 1ste discussiebijeenkomst over biotechnologie bij dieren (Animal Integrity: Building Block or Stumbling Block? Report of the First Discussion Meeting About Animal Biotechnology) (Utrecht: Centre for Bioethics and Health Law).
Visak, Tatjana and Meijboom, Franck (2003a), Op Zoek naar Alternatieven – maar voor Welke Doelstelling? (Searching for Alternatives – but for Which Goal?) (Utrecht: Ethiek Instituut).
Visak, Tatjana and Meijboom, Franck (2003b), Het Maatschappelijk Belang van een Doelstelling: Zoeken naar goede argumenten. Verslag van de derde discussiebijeenkomst over biotechnologie bij dieren (The Social Importance of an Aim: Seeking Good Arguments. Report of the Third Discussion Meeting About Animal Biotechnology) (Utrecht: Ethics Institute).
Visak, Tatjana and Meijboom, Franck (2004), ‘De Waarde van een Machtsvrije Dialoog voor Verdere Verdieping. Verslag van de vierde discussiebijeenkomst over biotechnologie bij dieren (The Value of a Powerfree Dialogue for Further Depth. Notes of the Fourth Discussion Meeting about Animal Biotechnology’ (Utrecht: Ethiek Instituut).
Vorstenbosch, Jan (2000), ‘Session Summary: The Role of Ethical Committees’, in Michael Balls, A.M. Van Zeller, and M.E. Halder (eds.), Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science), 1485.
Wickson, Fern (2006), ‘From Risk to Uncertainty: Australia’s Environmental Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops’, Doctoral Thesis (University of Wollongong).
Winner, Langdon (1986), The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bovenkerk, B. (2012). Committees: The Politics of Containment. In: The Biotechnology Debate. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2691-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2691-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2690-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2691-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)