IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v35y2008i3p197-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The laboratory of public debate: Understanding the acceptability of stem cell research

Author

Listed:
  • Maja Horst

Abstract

After an extensive period of public controversy, the Danish parliament legalised stem cell research on ‘spare’ embryos in 2003. This paper argues that this legalisation was dependent on a perception of acceptability among the public and explores how public debate can serve a ‘performatory function’ in establishing such a situation of perceived legitimacy. The intention of this paper, however, is not to examine the Danish controversies in order to unravel the substantial ethico-political issues in the governance of stem cell research, but rather to understand the specific processes through which the formation of public opinion has contributed to the shaping of the acceptability of stem cell research. The paper analyses the various constructions of legitimate voices and their representation in the policy process and demonstrates that the framing of representation changed during the policy process. This change in framing made it possible to obtain a compromise, and can therefore be seen as a necessary precondition for the decision to permit stem cell research. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Maja Horst, 2008. "The laboratory of public debate: Understanding the acceptability of stem cell research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 197-205, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:3:p:197-205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234208X302652
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:3:p:197-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.