000			03399nam a22005055i 4500
001			978-94-007-2691-8
003			DE-He213
005			20140220083342.0
007			cr nn 008mamaa
008			120102s2012 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020			_a9789400726918 _9978-94-007-2691-8
024	7		_a10.1007/978-94-007-2691-8 _2doi
050		4	_aBJ1-1725
072		7	_aHPQ _2bicssc
072		7	_aPHI005000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a170 _223
100	1		_aBovenkerk, Bernice. _eauthor.
245	1	4	_aThe Biotechnology Debate _h[electronic resource] : _bDemocracy in the Face of Intractable Disagreement / _cby Bernice Bovenkerk.
264		1	_aDordrecht : _bSpringer Netherlands : _bImprint: Springer, _c2012.
300			_aXIX, 334p. 1 illus. _bonline resource.
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
490	1		_aLibrary of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, _x1387-6678 ; _v29
505	0		_a1. Introduction -- 2. Biotechnology: An Anatomy of the Debate -- 3. Constraining or Enabling Dialogue? -- 4. Deliberative Democracy and its Limits -- 5. Committees: The Politics of Containment -- 6. Consensus Conferences: The Politics of Containment.
520			_aThis book grounds deliberative democratic theory in a more refined understanding of deliberative practice, in particular when dealing with intractable moral disagreement regarding novel technologies. While there is an ongoing, vibrant debate about the theoretical merits of deliberative democracy on the one hand, and more recently, empirical studies of specific deliberative exercises have been carried out, these two discussions fail to speak to one another. Debates about animal and plant biotechnology are examined as a paradigmatic case for intractable disagreement in today’s pluralistic societies. This examination reveals that the disagreements in this debate are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional and can often be traced to fundamental disagreements about values or worldviews. “One of the acute insights to emerge from this examination is that deliberation can serve different purposes vis-à-vis different types of problem.  In the case of deeply unstructured problems, like the modern biotechnology debate, the aim of inclusion is more appropriate than the aim of consensus. This book highlights the importance of political culture and broader institutional settings in shaping the capacity and propensity of citizens to engage in deliberation and the degree to which governments are prepared to relinquish authority to deliberative mini-publics." Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne, Australia
650		0	_aPhilosophy (General).
650		0	_aEthics.
650		0	_aAnimal genetics.
650		0	_aBiotechnology.
650	1	4	_aPhilosophy.
650	2	4	_aEthics.
650	2	4	_aPolitical Science, general.
650	2	4	_aAnimal Genetics and Genomics.
650	2	4	_aEnvironmental Engineering/Biotechnology.
650	2	4	_aSociology, general.
710	2		_aSpringerLink (Online service)
773	0		_tSpringer eBooks
776	0	8	_iPrinted edition: _z9789400726901
830		0	_aLibrary of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, _x1387-6678 ; _v29
856	4	0	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2691-8
912			_aZDB-2-SHU
999			_c104544 _d104544