Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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 Garland, M. J.
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?

Experts and the public: a needed partnership for genetic policy

Michael J. Garland

Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Center for Ethics in Health Care, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon

Scientists are wary of public participation in policy that influences the work of scientific discovery and technological application. In the area of genetic science this is particularly troublesome. The science and its applications are extremely complex. How the public can play a part in guiding the process is not clear. Yet genetic possibilities affect individuals and social groups intimately and the exercise of social responsibility for policies is imperative. A solution lies in effective partnership between scientific experts and the general public within the framework of representative democracy. Goals of education, information transfer, and community building point to methods for public participation. The community meeting approach used in the development of health care priorities in Oregon is highlighted. Obstacles to participation come from our weak sense of community, widespread political alienation, endemic cynicism, and problems of social voice.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 8, No. 3, 241-254 (1999)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/3/308
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
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
J. Nisker and A. S. Daar
Moral presentation of genetics-based narratives for public understanding of genetic science and its implications
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2006; 15(1): 113 - 123.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
S. E. Gollust, K. Apse, B. P. Fuller, P. S. Miller, and B. B. Biesecker
Community Involvement in Developing Policies for Genetic Testing: Assessing the Interests and Experiences of Individuals Affected by Genetic Conditions
Am J Public Health, January 1, 2005; 95(1): 35 - 41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
B. R. Bates
Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2005; 14(1): 47 - 65.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
K. M. Allspaw
Engaging the public in the regulation of xenotransplantation: would the Canadian model of public consultation be effective in the US?
Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2004; 13(4): 417 - 428.
[Abstract] [PDF]