Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Einsiedel, E. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation

Edna F. Einsiedel

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

A policy question was posed in 2001 to Canadian publics: should Canada proceed with clinical trials on xenotransplantation and if so, under what conditions? As part of its development of policy and regulations on this medical technology, Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association implemented a public consultation process that included a public opinion survey and deliberative citizen fora modeled along the citizens' jury. This study focuses on the citizen fora and describes an assessment of effectiveness based on an evaluation framework developed on the basis of concepts from constructive technology assessment and deliberative democracy.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, 315-331 (2002)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
J. C. Besley, V. L. Kramer, Qingjiang Yao, and C. Toumey
Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology: What, If Anything, Do They Say?
Science Communication, December 1, 2008; 30(2): 209 - 235.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
J. Burgess, A. Stirling, J. Clark, G. Davies, M. Eames, K. Staley, and S. Williamson
Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions
Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2007; 16(3): 299 - 322.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Information ScienceHome page
L. Libutti and A. Valente
Science communication and information dissemination: the role of the information professional in the 'Perception and Awareness of Science' project
Journal of Information Science, April 1, 2006; 32(2): 191 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]