Search results

This article is based on a paper delivered at the Third National Symposium on Genetics and the Law in Boston, April 1984.

The US has always valued science as both a source of knowledge & a contributor to political freedom. In this view, science is inherently progressive & must not be contaminated by political ideology. However, science is increasingly caught in ideological & political disputes. The implications of science controversies for managing science policy are discussed, & the twenty-year fetal research dispute is examined. Fetal research was a promising area by the early 1970s, but became involved in the battle over abortion after Roe v. Wade, at which time the antiabortion movement pressured elected officials to ban fetal research. Congress initiated a temporary ban on federal research, but by the mid-1980s, twenty-five states had passed their own guidelines. In the late 1980s, the issue resurfaced, with new arguments in favor of research due to advances in medical technology that changed the issue to one of blocking medical treatment rather than blocking research. Controversies such as fetal research help science by forcing discussion of differing values & issues. 16 References. A. Cole

Implications of scientific controversies for science policy; impact of abortion politics on the 20-year fetal research dispute; US.

Examines the influence of political elites, interest groups, government, and citizens on the formation of public opinion, and the relationship of public opinion to the policy-making process; US.

Following demands to regulate biomedicine in the post-war period, Sweden saw several political debates about research ethics in the 1970s. Many of the debates centered on fetal research and animal experiments. At stake were questions of moral permissibility, public transparency, and scientific freedom. However, these debates did not only reveal ethical disagreement—they also contributed to constructing new boundaries between life-forms. Taking a post-Marxist approach to discursive policy analysis, we argue that the meaning of both the "human" and the "animal" in these debates was shaped by a need to manage a legitimacy crisis for medical science. By analyzing Swedish government bills, motions, parliamentary debates, and committee memorials from the 1970s, we map out how fetal and animal research were constituted as policy problems. We place particular emphasis on the problematization of fetal and animal vulnerability. By comparing the debates, we trace out how a particular vision of the ideal life defined the human-animal distinction.

Following demands to regulate biomedicine in the post-war period, Sweden saw several political debates about research ethics in the 1970s. Many of the debates centered on fetal research and animal experiments. At stake were questions of moral permissibility, public transparency, and scientific freedom. However, these debates did not only reveal ethical disagreement—they also contributed to constructing new boundaries between life-forms. Taking a post-Marxist approach to discursive policy analysis, we argue that the meaning of both the "human" and the "animal" in these debates was shaped by a need to manage a legitimacy crisis for medical science. By analyzing Swedish government bills, motions, parliamentary debates, and committee memorials from the 1970s, we map out how fetal and animal research were constituted as policy problems. We place particular emphasis on the problematization of fetal and animal vulnerability. By comparing the debates, we trace out how a particular vision of the ideal life defined the human-animal distinction.