Inclusion by Invitation Only? Public Engagement beyond Deliberation in the Governance of Innovative Biotechnology

&
American Journal of Bioethics 23 (12):79-82 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

From their interpretation of the Australian Citizens’ Jury on genome editing, Scheinerman (2023) concludes that inclusive and diverse deliberative processes of public engagement have salient benefi...

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2023.2272930

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,475

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. [REVIEW]Rob Hagendijk & Alan Irwin - 2006 - Minerva 44 (2):167-184.
What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks?Richard Milne, Annie Sorbie & Mary Dixon-Woods - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics.
The Intrinsic Value of Public Deliberation in the Governance of Human Genome Editing.Kalina Kamenova - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):63-65.
The Contingent Role of Conflict: Deliberative Interaction and Disagreement in Shareholder Engagement.Irene Beccarini, Daniel Beunza, Fabrizio Ferraro & Andreas G. F. Hoepner - forthcoming - Business Ethics Quarterly:1-41.
Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild.Michael K. Gusmano, Gregory E. Kaebnick, Karen J. Maschke, Carolyn P. Neuhaus & Ben Curran Wills - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 51 (S2):2-10.
Varieties of Deliberation: Framing Plurality in Political CSR.Cedric E. Dawkins - 2022 - Business Ethics Quarterly 32 (3):374-403.
Restructuring Deliberation Using a Cultural Theory Lens.Teshanee Williams - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 51 (S2):62-65.
Inclusion and the Epistemic Benefits of Deliberation.John B. Min - 2016 - Contemporary Pragmatism 13 (1):48-69.
The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.John M. Conley, R. Jean Cadigan, Arlene M. Davis, Eric T. Juengst, Kriste Kuczynski, Rami Major, Hayley Stancil, Julio Villa-Palomino, Margaret Waltz & Gail E. Henderson - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):9-16.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens’ Juries”.Naomi Scheinerman - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (12):1-3.
Public deliberation to develop ethical norms and inform policy for biobanks: Lessons learnt and challenges remaining.Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael M. Burgess - 2013 - Research Ethics 9 (2):55-77.
On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild.S. Kathleen Barnhill-Dilling, Adam Kokotovich & Jason A. Delborne - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 51 (S2):48-61.
The Public and Geoengineering Decision-Making.Pak-Hang Wong - 2013 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 17 (3):350-367.
When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation.Carolyn M. Hendriks - 2006 - Politics and Society 34 (4):571-602.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-11-28

Downloads
12 (#1,075,977)

6 months
12 (#207,528)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Who Goes First? Deaf People and CRISPR Germline Editing.Carol Padden & Jacqueline Humphries - 2020 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (1):54-65.

Add more references