Does the state still frame debates about new technology? Can policy-makers ensure the benefits of health developments through genomics while still satisfying the expectations of society and the economic imperatives? In this critique of the new governance agenda for research and innovation in life sciences, the authors discuss the world-wide policy decisions needed, with particular reference to genomics. They suggest the many facets of policy and could be treated as a government-governance continuum, where different aspects of genomics may sit at different points, and co-exist. Their findings offer valuable insights for the future and will help promote a global solution to this problem.
Table of Contents
Contents: Foreword; Preface; The challenge of policy-making for the new life sciences, Catherine Lyall, Theo Papaioannou and James Smith; Part 1 Principles: Governance and justice: the challenge of genomics, Theo Papaioannu; The roles of values and interests in the governance of the life sciences: learning lessons from the 'ethics+' approach of UK Biobank, Graeme Laurie, Ann Bruce and Catherine Lyall; Governing reproductive treatment and research: from the moral to the political to the legal - and back again? Or ’there and back again, a regulator’s (Hobbit’s) odyssey (holiday)’, Shawn H.E. Harmon. Part 2 Processes: Evolution along the government-governance continuum: impacts of regulations on medicines innovation in the United States, Christopher-Paul Milne and Joyce Tait; Governments and governance of bioscience as a 'new security challenge', Paul Nightingale and CaitrÃona McLeish; Biosciences, 'development' and the abstraction of governance, James Smith; Ever-changing policy context: the one stable threat to biotech governance in Africa?, Julius Tazvishaya Mugwagwa. Part 3 People: Advocacy groups as research organizations: novel approaches in research governance, Nadja Kanellopoulou; Non-governmental limits: governing biotechnology from Europe to Africa, Matthew Harsh; Deliberative governance: political fad or a vision of empowerment?, Peter Bryant; Governance in action in the life sciences: some lessons for policy, Catherine Lyall, Theo Papaioannou and James Smith; Index.
'This is a much-needed, constructively critical look at governance as the proposed alternative to top-down government approaches. It is generally relevant, not just for the new life sciences which are the occasion for this volume. Enjoy the variety of the chapters, and in particular the sustained attention to what is happening in African countries.' Arie Rip, University of Twente, The Netherlands 'In contemporary science policy debate much store is set in developing better governance in response to the growing complexity and uncertainty of innovative science. This is especially true of the life sciences, and this book, expertly edited by Catherine Lyall and her colleagues, provides a fresh and critical examination of the the tools of governance that are and should be applied within the life sciences industries: the tension between industrial, government and the wider public interest requires careful analysis and a deft handling of the legal, regulatory and broader participative processes involved. This book is a timely, highly informed and critical examination of the contemporary governance debate and recommended to those working in science studies, public policy and political science.' Andrew Webster, York University, UK 'Each chapter is well-researched and of outstanding quality... rich with insights, presents difficult material in a compact and readable manner, and develops a cogent argument... The Limits to Governance strikes a nice balance between diversity and coherence, which is a rare feat for an edited volume. Each chapter adopts unique perspectives on novel case studies, but each also contributes to the unifying ''limits to governance'' thesis. A final strength that may at first appear to be a weakness of the volume is its normative non-commitment. The central question is: what are ''successful'' or ''good'' policies for the new life sciences? There is no definitive answer to be found. Rather, the question is left open, which allows each author to define the goals in his or her own way, which in turn allows the reader to assess multiple answers.' Contemporary Sociology