Genomics and Public Involvement: Giving Justifications Their Due

G. Badano
{"title":"Genomics and Public Involvement: Giving Justifications Their Due","authors":"G. Badano","doi":"10.1515/1941-6008.1176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The involvement of the public in the governance of genomics has become a topic of growing interest among scholars, practitioners and policy-makers. The implementation of public involvement programmes may be expensive, and the design and evaluation of public participation is a matter of controversy. Thus, this paper examines the justifications for public participation in the governance of genomics to help understand whether public involvement is worthwhile and to provide a guide to the design of public participation.I identify four primary justifications in support of public involvement. I argue that three of them have serious flaws: neither an increase in the stability of institutions, nor the positive effects on individual virtues, nor the epistemic merits of participatory activities provide a solid ground for the engagement of the public in the governance of genomics. However, the ideal of legitimacy in the exercise of coercive power appears to lend strong support to public involvement programmes. Given that the reasons why public involvement is sought shape the design of the participatory activities, restricting the range of valid justifications promises to simplify the task of designing and evaluating public involvement.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-6008.1176","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-6008.1176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The involvement of the public in the governance of genomics has become a topic of growing interest among scholars, practitioners and policy-makers. The implementation of public involvement programmes may be expensive, and the design and evaluation of public participation is a matter of controversy. Thus, this paper examines the justifications for public participation in the governance of genomics to help understand whether public involvement is worthwhile and to provide a guide to the design of public participation.I identify four primary justifications in support of public involvement. I argue that three of them have serious flaws: neither an increase in the stability of institutions, nor the positive effects on individual virtues, nor the epistemic merits of participatory activities provide a solid ground for the engagement of the public in the governance of genomics. However, the ideal of legitimacy in the exercise of coercive power appears to lend strong support to public involvement programmes. Given that the reasons why public involvement is sought shape the design of the participatory activities, restricting the range of valid justifications promises to simplify the task of designing and evaluating public involvement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基因组学和公众参与:给予正当理由
公众参与基因组学的治理已经成为学者、实践者和决策者越来越感兴趣的话题。公众参与方案的实施可能是昂贵的,公众参与的设计和评价是一个有争议的问题。因此,本文考察了公众参与基因组学治理的理由,以帮助理解公众参与是否值得,并为公众参与的设计提供指导。我提出了支持公众参与的四个主要理由。我认为,其中有三个存在严重缺陷:既没有增加机构的稳定性,也没有对个人美德产生积极影响,也没有为参与活动的认知价值提供公众参与基因组学治理的坚实基础。然而,强制权力行使合法性的理想似乎为公众参与方案提供了强有力的支持。考虑到寻求公众参与的原因决定了参与活动的设计,限制有效理由的范围有望简化设计和评估公众参与的任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Legitimacy Review of Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age Review of Interfaces on Trial 2.0 From ICH to IBH in Biobanking? A Legal Perspective on Harmonization, Standardization and Unification The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1