Abstract
In 1999, the UK Government responded to escalating tensions surrounding biotechnology governance by creating two strategic, non-statutory advisory bodies: the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) and the Human Genetics Commission (HGC). They were designed to represent diverse stakeholder perspectives, operate transparently and engage with a variety of interested individuals and groups. This was a shift in meta-governance involving the creation of boundary organisations, discipline-bridging instruments of governance that serve to stabilise, clarify and legitimise policy advice. This paper has two main objectives: to conduct a comparative exploration of the relative success of HGC and AEBC as boundary organisations; and to test the utility of an analysis of public meeting transcripts, supplemented by interview data, in identifying factors contributing to consensus and contention in these twin Commissions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 729-744 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Science and Public Policy |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver