Consensus conference on genetic testing: citizenship and technology

Vandenabeele, Joke; Goorden, Lieve

doi:10.1002/casp.778

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The project described is based primarily on the well-established citizens' jury model (Genetics Forum, 1999;WIHSC, 1997;Wakeford, 2002;PEALS, 2003). It has been adapted by adding elements of other participation methods, namely the consensus conference, which is a model used primarily to discuss issues of a technological nature (Einsiedel and Eastlick, 2000;Vandenabeele and Goorden, 2004). The citizens' jury and consensus conference are considered models of "deliberative public engagement" and have a distinctive approach to involving publics in decision making.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The National DNA Database on trial

Anderson

Stackhouse²,

Shaw³

et al. 2010

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there has been research conducted on public views about ethical and social aspects of the National DNA Database (NDNAD), there is little which focuses on views of young people, in particular those whose details are held on the NDNAD. We describe an engagement activity developed in South Wales to engage young offenders with ethical and social issues surrounding the NDNAD--a Mock Trial--and how we facilitated the presentation of their views to policy makers. We discuss the successes and challenges we encountered with engaging young offenders, decisions that the young people reached about possible future policies for the NDNAD at the Mock Trial, and their contribution to the decision-making process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The National DNA Database on trial

Anderson

Stackhouse²,

Shaw³

et al. 2010

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So how might multi-stakeholder debate that leads to expanded learning capacity take place? Vandenabeele and Goorden (2004, p. 212) propose that argumentation should be “systematic as well as pluralistic”. The term systematic encompasses “logic or clarity ( […] sound reasoning); scepticism ( […] explicit about ambiguities and uncertainties); flexibility ( […] concrete and abstract thought); transparency ( […] provide for the testing of results)” ( .).…”

Section: Accounting As a Technology Of Humilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The term systematic encompasses “logic or clarity ( […] sound reasoning); scepticism ( […] explicit about ambiguities and uncertainties); flexibility ( […] concrete and abstract thought); transparency ( […] provide for the testing of results)” ( .). However, to focus solely on systematic argumentation misleadingly suggests issues are “resolvable purely by remedying a lack of knowledge” (Vandenabeele and Goorden, 2004, p. 212). For proponents of technologies of humility, the quality of arguments is equally an issue of recognising the plurality of viewpoints.…”

Section: Accounting As a Technology Of Humilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For proponents of technologies of humility, the quality of arguments is equally an issue of recognising the plurality of viewpoints. As Vandenabeele and Goorden elaborate:Plurality is understood to mean that a broad focus is guaranteed: there should be no restrictions in terms of the kind of arguments that may be put forward (objective, normative, subjective) […] This requires openness towards a diversity of presuppositions in science, disciplines, minority and majority viewpoints, mental and moral frameworks on which arguments can be founded (Vandenabeele and Goorden, 2004, p. 212).…”

Section: Accounting As a Technology Of Humilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accounting for non-financial matters: technologies of humility as a means for developing critical dialogic accounting and accountability

Brown

Dillard

2020

MEDAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an expanded introduction of Jasanoff’s (2003, 2007) work on “technologies of humility” to the accounting literature and to show how it can be useful in developing critical dialogic accountings for non-financial matters. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on Jasanoff’s (2003, 2007) distinction between “technologies of hubris” and “technologies of humility”, this study extends prior research on critical dialogic accounting and accountability (CDAA) that seeks to “take pluralism seriously” (Brown, 2009; Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). This study shows how Jasanoff’s work facilitates constructing critical, reflexive approaches to accounting for non-financial matters consistent with agonistics-based CDAA. Findings Jasanoff’s four proposed focal points for developing new analytical tools for accounting for non-financial matters and promoting participatory governance – framing, vulnerability, distribution and learning – are argued to be useful in conceptualising possible CDAA technologies. These aspects are all currently ignored or downplayed in conventional approaches to accounting for non-financial matters, limiting accounting’s ability to promote more socially just and ecologically sustainable societies. Originality/value The authors introduce Jasanoff’s work on technologies of humility to show how CDAA, informed by Jasanoff’s proposed focal points, can help to expose controversial issues that powerful interests prefer to obscure, to surface the normative foundations of technocratic analytic methods, to address the need for plural perspectives and social learning and to bring all these aspects “into the dynamics of democratic debate” (Jasanoff, 2003, p. 240). As such, they provide criteria for constructing accounting technology consistent with agonistics-based CDAA.

show abstract

“…Several forms of public participation have been used in this arena, e.g. the public debate "Food and Genes" in the Netherlands ( 2001) and consensus conferences in Denmark (1999), France (1998), the UK (1994), and Norway (1996) (Einsiedel et al, 2001;Joss and Durant, 1995;Vandenabeele and Goorden, 2004;Joss, 2002Joss, , 2005. It is not always clear whether dialogues such as these have helped to improve the conditions for participatory knowledge production (Jelsma, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in the exchange of arguments: the case of scientists’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most perspectives on public participation share the notion that dialogues should be open, allowing participants to articulate and evaluate different views and knowledge claims. We hypothesize that participants' evaluation of claims may be biased because participants have a preference for a particular type or source of a claim. This would hamper an open dialogue. We tested the effect of three variables on scientists' evaluation of claims of the general public about GM food: the claim's favorability towards GM food, the phrasing, and the source of the claim. Results are based on a survey-experiment among 73 biotechnology-scientists. Biased processing occurred when scientists evaluated claims. Claims that were corresponding with the attitude of the scientists and that were phrased in a cognitive way were evaluated more positively than claims that were contrasting the attitude of the scientists and that were phrased in an affective way. Contrary to our expectation, scientists evaluated claims of the public more positively than claims of experts.

show abstract

Consensus conference on genetic testing: citizenship and technology

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

The National DNA Database on trial

The National DNA Database on trial

Accounting for non-financial matters: technologies of humility as a means for developing critical dialogic accounting and accountability

Bias in the exchange of arguments: the case of scientists’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About