Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T03:06:01.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biotechnology, Public Policy, and the Social Sciences: Critical Needs in Teaching and Research1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Robert H. Blank ,
Lynton K. Caldwell ,
Thomas C. Wiegele  and
Raymond A. Zilinskas
Robert H. Blank
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Program for Biosocial Research, Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115-2854
Lynton K. Caldwell
Affiliation:
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405
Thomas C. Wiegele
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Program for Biosocial Research, Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115-2854
Raymond A. Zilinskas
Affiliation:
Consultant on Science Policy, Santa Monica, California 93101
Get access

Abstract

Science-based biotechnology is now introducing fundamental changes in the status of life on earth which have major implications for human society, yet the social sciences are largely failing to address these changes. Biotechnology offers immense opportunities for advancing the quality of human life, holding promise for overcoming numerous and heretofore intractable causes of suffering and impoverishment. Moreover, it may enable mankind to enjoy the benefits of science without degradation of the biosphere. But to obtain these advantages biotechnology must be guided by wise and timely public policies. Even the most beneficent innovation may create problems that, unless anticipated and prevented, may offset or cancel out social gains.

Type
Reports
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 64 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Boyer, H. W., Cohen, S. N., Davis, R. W., Hogness, D. S., Nathans, D., Roblin, R., Watson, J. D., Weissman, S., and Zinder, N. (1974). “Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules.” Science 185: 303.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. N. (1975). “The Manipulation of Genes.” Scientific American 233 (1): 24–33.Google Scholar
de Jouvenal, B. (1965). “Political Science and Prevision.” American Political Science Review 59 (1): 29–38.Google Scholar
Fleming, D. (1969). “On Living in a Biological Revolution.” The Atlantic Monthly 223 (2): 64–70.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, D. S. (1979). “A History of the Recombinant DNA Guidelines in the United States.” In Morgan, J. and Whelan, W. J. (eds.), Recombinant DNA and Genetic Experimentation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 151–156.Google Scholar
Geissler, E., ed. (1986). Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1983). Genetic Alchemy: A Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. (1929). “The Study of the III as a Method of Research into Political Personalities.” American Political Science Review 23: 996–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, C. E. (1921). “The Present State of the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 15: 173–191.Google Scholar
Merriam, C. E. (1926). “Progress in Political Research.” American Political Science Review 22: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, W. B. (1928). “Physics and Politics—An Old Analogy Revisited.” American Political Science Review 22: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine (1986). “A New Perspective for Biology: Its Central Role in the Liberal Arts Education of the Future.” Editorial. 29 (4): 489–92.Google Scholar
U. S. House of Representatives (1986). Issues in the Federal Regulation of Biotechnology: From Research to Release. House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight. 99th Cong., 2d sess.Google Scholar
U. S. National Research Council (1982). Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
U. S. Office of Technology Assessment (1981). Impacts of Applied Genetics. Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
U. S. Office of Technology Assessment (1983). Genetic Screening in the Workplace. Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
U. S. Office of Technology Assessment (1984). Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis. Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
Wright, S., and Sinsheimer, R. L. (1983). “Recombinant DNA and Biological Warfare.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 39: 20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilinskas, R. A. (1986). “Recombinant DNA Research and Biological Warfare.” In Zilinskas, R. A. and Zimmerman, B. K. (eds.), The Gene Splicing Wars: Reflections on the Recombinant DNA Controversy. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, pp. 167–203.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. K. (1986). “Science and Politics: DNA Comes to Washington.” In Zilinskas, R. A. and Zimmerman, B. K. (eds.), The Gene Splicing Wars: Reflections on the Recombinant DNA Controversy. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar