IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i5p1128-1137.html

Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Lyall, Catherine
  • Tait, Joyce

Abstract

‘Governance’ is a highly plastic concept that has spilled over from the political sciences and has been adopted, in some cases rather uncritically, by scholars from other social science traditions. We argue that there are limits to this all-pervasive notion of governance. Some of these limitations could potentially be addressed by the ‘tentative governance’ approach if it can create new opportunities for learning in order to cope with the problems of uncertainty at an early stage of new and emerging technologies in areas such as the life sciences. In order to move beyond these limits, we may be able to use the heuristic device offered by tentative governance as a step towards developing and adopting new rules of engagement. These new rules of engagement need (i) to recognise that consensus may not always be possible in areas of new and emerging technology and (ii) to accept a more balanced approach to governance that acknowledges the role of policy and politics. In order to achieve this, we need to go beyond science and technology studies (STS) and innovation studies and adopt a more interdisciplinary approach that acknowledges the contributions already made to this governance debate by a wide range of scholars, including those in the political sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:5:p:1128-1137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733319300174
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Collins, 2009. "We cannot live by scepticism alone," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7234), pages 30-30, March.
    2. Joyce Tait, 2001. "More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 175-189, April.
    3. Fagerberg, Jan & Landström, Hans & Martin, Ben R., 2012. "Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1121-1131.
    4. Mike Marinetto, 2003. "Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51, pages 592-608, October.
    5. Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
    6. Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler, 2008. "The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(7), pages 489-499, August.
    7. Wagner, W., 2005. "The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 99-106.
    8. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. O’Riordan Joanna & Boyle Richard, 2023. "Governance of reform in the Irish public service," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 71(3), pages 11-33, August.
    2. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    3. March, Raymond J. & Geloso, Vincent, 2020. "Gordon Tullock meets Phineas Gage: The political economy of lobotomies in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    4. Boyle Richard & O’Riordan Joanna & O’Leary Fergal & Shannon Laura, 2021. "Structured, formal engagement of stakeholders in public policy – The case of An Fóram Uisce (The Water Forum)," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 69(4), pages 39-55, December.
    5. Irwin, Alan & Vedel, Jane Bjørn & Vikkelsø, Signe, 2021. "Isomorphic difference: Familiarity and distinctiveness in national research and innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    6. Inga Ulnicane & William Knight & Tonii Leach & Bernd Carsten Stahl & Winter-Gladys Wanjiku, 2021. "Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy [The next space race is Artificial Intelligence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 158-177.
    7. Borrás, Susana & Edler, Jakob, 2020. "The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    2. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    3. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    4. Lievrouw, Leah A., 2010. "Instructions for being unhappy with PTA — The impact on PTA of Austrian technology policy experts´ conceptualisation of the public," ITA manu:scripts 10_02, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    5. D Rigby, 2004. "GM Food, Risk, Regulation and the EU-US Trade Dispute," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0410, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    6. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    7. Malte Hückstädt, 2022. "Coopetition between frenemies–interrelations and effects of seven collaboration problems in research clusters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5191-5224, September.
    8. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    9. Aurora Castro Teixeira & Maria João Barros, 2014. "Local municipalities’ involvement in promoting the internationalisation of SMEs," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 29(1-2), pages 141-162, February.
    10. Ciro D. Esposito & Balazs Szatmari & Jonathan M. C. Sitruk & Nachoem M. Wijnberg, 2024. "Getting off to a good start: emerging academic fields and early-stage equity financing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1591-1613, April.
    11. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    12. Joanna Chataway, 2005. "Introduction: is it possible to create pro-poor agriculture-related biotechnology?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 597-610.
    13. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    14. Coenen, Tom B.J. & Wiarda, Martijn & Visscher, Klaasjan & Penna, Caetano C.R. & Volker, Leentje, 2025. "Mission-Oriented Transition Assessment as a reflective approach to mission governance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    15. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    16. Shelley Kotze & Mirek Dymitrow, 2022. "North–South research collaborations: An empirical evaluation against principles of transboundary research," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(2), March.
    17. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    18. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    19. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Andersen, Per Dannemand, 2014. "Innovation system foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 276-286.
    20. Inga Ulnicane & William Knight & Tonii Leach & Bernd Carsten Stahl & Winter-Gladys Wanjiku, 2021. "Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy [The next space race is Artificial Intelligence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 158-177.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:5:p:1128-1137. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.