IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v23y1996i2p117-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biotechnology in Europe: contentions in the risk-regulation debate

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Shohet

Abstract

The technical arguments for and against process-based regulation of biotechnology are reviewed, and the positions of proponents and opponents are examined, using the UK as a case. In particular, the findings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1989, which was in favour of specific regulation of genetic modification, are contrasted with the recommendations of the UK House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology, which in 1993 argued strongly for the relaxation of specific regulation of biotechnology. The various contentions about process-based regulation are examined critically, and the case is put that the precautionary approach, which was the basis of rules adopted in Europe in the late 1980s, can be justified. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Shohet, 1996. "Biotechnology in Europe: contentions in the risk-regulation debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 117-122, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:23:y:1996:i:2:p:117-122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/23.2.117
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.

    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:23:y:1996:i:2:p:117-122. 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.