Public bioethics bodies are used internationally as institutions with the declared aims of facilitating societal debate and providing policy advice in certain areas of scientific inquiry raising questions of values and legitimate science. In the United States, bioethical experts in these institutions use the language of consensus building to justify and define the outcome of the enterprise. However, the implications of public bioethics at science-policy boundaries are underexamined. Political interest in such bodies continues while their influence on societal consensus, public debate, and science policy remains ambiguous. This article presents a theoretical discussion of public bioethics bodies as boundary organizations and examines them in terms of relationship to the moral and cognitive authority of science and other forms of expertise, mechanisms for public participation in controversial science policy, and the deployment of consensus models. The theoretical discussion is examined in the case of the U.S. Human Embryo Research Panel.
References
1.
Bayertz, K. 1994a. Introduction: Moral consensus as a social and philosophical problem. In The moral concept of consensus: The case of technological interventions in human reproduction, edited by K. Bayertz, 1-15. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic .
2.
Bayertz, K., ed. 1994b. The moral concept of consensus: The case of technological interventions in human reproduction. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic .
3.
Benjamin, M. 1995. The value of consensus. In Society's choices: Social and ethical decision making in biomedicine, edited by R. E. Bulger, E. M. Bobby, and H. V. Fineberg, 241-260. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
4.
Brock, D. W. 1995. Public moral discourse. In Society's choices: Social and ethical decision making in biomedicine, edited by R. E. Bulger, E. M. Bobby, and H. V. Fineberg, 215-240. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
5.
Bulger, R. E., E. M. Bobby, and H. V. Fineberg, eds. 1995. Society's choices: Social and ethical decision making in bioethics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
6.
Burt, R. A. 1984. The ideal of community in the work of the President's Commission . Cardozo Law Review6 (2): 267-286 .
7.
Capron, Alexander M. 1983. Looking back at the President's Commission . Hastings Center Report13 (5): 7-12 .
8.
Casarett, D. J., F. Daskal, and J. Lantos. 1998. Experts in ethics? The authority of the clinical ethicist . Hastings Center Report28 (6): 6-11 .
9.
Casper, M. J. 1998. The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .
10.
Charo, R. A. 1995. The hunting of the snark: The moral status of embryos, right-to-lifers, and Third World women . Stanford Law and Policy Review6 (2): 1-38 .
11.
Clymer, Adam. 2001. The nation: Wrong number; the unbearable lightness of public opinion polls. The New York Times, 22 July, sec. 4, p. 3.
12.
Collingridge, David, and Colin Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policymaking. New York: St. Martin's .
13.
Conference Proceedings. 1995. The role of bioethics in health care policy . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Biomedical Ethics.
14.
Cozzens, S. E., and E. J. Woodhouse. 1995. Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 533-553. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
15.
Danish Council of Ethics. 1992. The Danish Council of Ethics . International Journal of Bioethics3 (4): 258-261 .
16.
Epstein, S. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials . Science, Technology, & Human Values20: 408-437 .
17.
Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press .
18.
Evans, J. H. 2002. Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
19.
Ezrahi, Y. 1990. The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
20.
Fletcher, J. C. 1991. The bioethics movement and hospital ethics committees . Maryland Law Review50 (3): 859-894 .
21.
Fox, R. C. 1991. The evolution of American bioethics: A sociological perspective. In Social science perspectives on medical ethics, edited by G. Weisz, 201-217. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press .
22.
Franklin, S. 1999. What we know and what we don't know about cloning and society . New Genetics and Society18 (1): 111-120 .
23.
Fujimura, J. H. 1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.” In Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering, 168-211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
24.
Gieryn, T. F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
25.
Gray, B. H. 1995. Bioethics commissions: What can we learn from past successes and failures? In Society's choices: Social and ethical decision making in bioethics, edited by R. E. Bulger, E. M. Bobby, and H. V. Fineberg, 261-306. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
26.
Green, Ronald M. 1994. At the vortex of controversy: Developing guidelines for human embryo research . Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal4 (4): 345-356 .
27.
Green, Ronald M. 1995. The Human Embryo Research Panel: Lessons for public ethics . Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics4: 502-515 .
28.
Guston, D. H. 1999a. Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the “citizens” panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy . Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (4): 451-482 .
29.
Guston, D. H. 1999b. Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization . Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87-111 .
30.
Hanna, K. E., R. M. Cook-Deegan, and R. Y. Nashimi. 1993. Finding a forum for bioethics in U.S. public policy . Politics and the Life Sciences12 (2): 205-219 .
31.
Human Embryo Research Panel. 1994a. Proceedings of the meeting of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Transcripts, 2 February. Bethesda, MD: Human Embryo Research Panel.
32.
Human Embryo Research Panel. 1994b. Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel: Ad hoc group of consultants to the advisory committee to the director, NIH. Vol. 1, 27 September 1994. Bethesda, MD: U.S. National Institutes of Health .
33.
Jasanoff, S. S. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science . Social Studies of Science17 (2): 195-230 .
34.
Jasanoff, S. S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
35.
Jennings, B. 1991. Possibilities of consensus: Toward democratic moral discourse . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16: 447-463 .
36.
Jonsen, A. R. 1993. Commentary: Scofield as Socrates . Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics2 (4): 434-438 .
37.
Kuhse, H. 1994. New reproductive technologies: Ethical conflict and the problem of consensus. In The moral concept of consensus: The case of technological interventions in human reproduction, edited by K. Bayertz, 75-96. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic .
38.
Kymlicka, W. 1993. Moral philosophy and public policy: The case of NRTs . Bioethics7 (1): 1-16 .
39.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
40.
Lebacqz, K., M. M. Mendiola, T. Peters, Ernest W. D. Young, and L. Zoloth-Dorfman. 1999. Research with human embryonic stem cells: Ethical considerations (Geron Ethical Advisory Board) . Hastings Center Report29 (2): 31-36 .
41.
Moore, K. 1996. Organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest organizations, 1955-1975 . American Journal of Sociology101 (6): 1592-1627 .
42.
Moreno, J. D. 1988. Ethics by committee: The moral authority of consensus . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy13: 411-431 .
43.
Moreno, J. D. 1990. What means this consensus? Ethics committees and philosophical tradition . Journal of Clinical Ethics1: 38-43 .
44.
Moreno, J. D. 1991. Consensus, contracts, and committees . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16 (4): 393-408 .
45.
Moreno, J. D. 1995. Deciding together: Bioethics and moral consensus. New York: Oxford University Press .
46.
Mulkay, M. 1997. The embryo research debate: Science and the politics of reproduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
47.
Nelkin, D. 1984. Science and technology policy and the democratic process. In Citizen participation in science policy, edited by J. C. Petersen. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press .
48.
Nelkin, D. 1994. The public face of science: What can we learn from disputes? In The fragile contract: University science and the federal government, edited by D. H. Guston and K. Keniston, 101-107. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
49.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 1993. Biomedical ethics in U.S. public policy—Background paper. OTA-BP-BBS-105. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office .
50.
Purdue, D. 1999. Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference . New Genetics and Society18 (1): 79-99 .
51.
Scofield, G. R. 1993. Ethics consultation: The least dangerous profession? Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics2 (4): 417-426 .
52.
Shapin, S. 1995. Trust, honesty and the authority of science. In Society's choices: Social and ethical decision making in bioethics, edited by R. E. Bulger, E. M. Bobby, and H. V. Fineberg, 388-408. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
53.
Shapiro, R. S. 2001. Statement on “the ethics of cloning” before the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, 7 June. Available from www.house.gov/judiciary/shapiro_060701.htm.
54.
Spielman, B. 2001. Role related responsibilities of bioethics: Expert witnesses . Law and Bioethics Report (Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law, University of Louisville)1 (2): 6-7 .
55.
Star, S. L., and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and coherence: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 . Social Studies of Science19: 387-420 .
56.
Thomasma, D. C. 1997. Bioethics and international human rights . Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics25 (4): 295-306 .
57.
Tong, R. 1991. The epistemology and ethics of consensus: Uses and misuses of “ethical” expertise . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16 (4): 409-426 .
58.
Van der Sluijz, Jeroen, Joss Van Eijndhoven, Simon Shackley, and Brian Wynne. 1998. Anchoring devices for science in policy: The case of consensus around climate sensitivity . Social Studies of Science28 (2): 291-323 .
59.
Veatch, R. M. 1991. Consensus of expertise: The role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16 (4): 427-445 .
60.
Veatch, R. M., and J. D. Moreno. 1991. Consensus in panels and committees: Conceptual and ethical issues . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16 (4): 371-373 .
61.
Warnock, M. 1985. A question of life: The Warnock Report on human fertilization and embryology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
62.
Weisbard, A. J., and J. D. Arras. 1984. Commissioning morality: An introduction to the symposium . Cardozo Law Review6 (2): 223-241 .
63.
Wellcome Trust, Medicine and Society Programme. 1998. Public perspectives on human cloning. London: Wellcome Trust . Available from www.welcome.ac.uk.
64.
Winner, L. 1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
65.
Wynne, B. 1999. Expert construction of lay epistemics . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), October, San Diego, CA.
66.
Yoder, S. D. 1998. The nature of ethical expertise . Hastings Center Report28 (6): 11-19 .
