Biosicherheit & Nachhaltigkeit




Zentrum BATS


Zentrum für Biosicherheit und Nachhaltigkeit

Technikfolgen Risikoanalyse
Home Home  |   Language: English English  |  

Dieser Artikel ist leider nicht in deutscher Sprache verfügbar.

Table of contents:  A review of the Danish, Dutch and UK approaches to this special form of technology assessment
Last Document: 5.  Recommendations

Last Document:
1.1  Field trials
Table of Contents
 Foods derived from genetically modified organisms and detection methods
Next Document:
1.3  Detection methods


The authors are very grateful for the kind and useful comments on parts of this report from Lars Kluever of the Danish Board of Technology. Special thanks are also due to: Lars Kluever for forwarding useful information about the Danish TA initiatives and for advising the organizers of the UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology; the organizers of the Dutch Public Debate (NOTA, PWT and SWOKA), especially to Anneke Hamstra (SWOKA) and Lydia Sterrenberg (NOTA) for commenting on the Dutch public debate; and to Beat Kappeler, editorial contributor to Die Weltwoche, and Annette Hafner from Switzerland.

This report is part of a larger research project on "public perception of biotechnology in a variety of European national contexts" funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project 5002-38046).


  • AFRC Annual Report 199213, UK-Swindon.
  • T. Agersnap, et al. (198912), Vurdering af en konsensus-konference om konferencen "Genteknologi i industri og landbrug", The Danish Board of Technology, DK-Copenhagen.
  • T. Blundell (1993), "Director General's Report", AFRC Annual Report 1992/3, UK-Swindon.
  • A. Cambrosio, and C. Limoges (1991), "Controversies as Governing Processes in Technology Assessment", in: Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol.3, No.4.
  • E.Q. Daddario (1968), in: Subcommittee on Science. Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session, SerA, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, Revised August 1968, p.10.
  • M. Dierkes (1989), 'Was ist und wozu betreibt man Technikfolgen- Abschätzung?", in: H.-J. Bullinger (ed.), Handbuch Organisation und Technik der Kommunikation, CH Beck Verlag, D-München.
  • J. R. Durant (1990), "Copernicus and Conan Doyle: or, why should we care about the public understanding of science?", in: Science and Public Affairs, 5(1), 1990, pp.7, United Kingdom.
  • J. Durant (1993), "What is scientific literacy?", in: European Review , Vol.2, No. 1, 1994, pp. 83.
  • J.R.Durant (1994), "Public Understandig of Science and Technology. A European Audit", in: Bernard Schiele (ed.), When Science Becomes Culture. World survey of scientific culture (proceedings 1), University of Ottawa Press, Boucherville, Canada, 1994, pp. 205-355.
  • C. Goodman, and S. Baratz (1990), "Improving Consensus Development for Health Technology Assessment: An International Perspective", Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
  • H M Government (1993), "Realising our potential. A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", Cm 2250, HMSO, UK-London.
  • E. de Grooth (1993), "The Dutch debate about biotechnology and animals", in: Proceedings. Biotechnology Education, Vol 4, No.2, Helix Publishing.
  • A.M. Hamstra, and M. H. Feenstra (1993), "Publiek Debat Genetische modificatie van dieren, mag dat?" Projektverslag en evaluatie. SWOKA onderzoeksrapport nr. 153, NL-Den Haag.
  • L. Hansen, et al. (1992), "Consensus Conferences", The Danish Board of Technology, DK-Copenhagen.
  • T. Hansen, et al. (1992), "Technology Assessment in Denmark, A Briefing", The Danish Board of Technology, DK-Copenhagen.
  • HFEA (1994), "Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryology Research and Assisted Conception; public consultation document", Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, UK-London.
  • D. Jacobs, et al. (1993), "Development of Methodology for Awareness Initiatives and Workshops, Second Report", TNO Policy Research, TNO Centre for Technology and Policy Studies, NL-Apeldorn.
  • M. Kodahl, et al. (1992), "Consensus Conference on Technological Animals, Final Document", The Danish Board of Technology, DK- Copenhagen.
  • I. Mayer (1993), "Een Methodische Evaluatie van het Publiek Debat: Genetische Modificatie bij Dieren, Mag Dat?, Eindrapportage", NOTA/Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, NL-Tilburg.
  • NOTA (1994), Draft Charter 1994, NL-Den Haag.
  • J. Ravn, et al. (1989), "Consensus Conference on Food Irradiation, Final Document", The Danish Board of Technology, DK-Copenhagen.
  • L. Rienecker, and F. Erichsen (1990), "Laegfolk i en konsensus konference", The Danish Board of Technology, DK-Copenhagen.
  • J. de Rooij (ed.) (1994), "Werkdocument; Het Publiek Debat: Praktijk, Ethiek en Methodiek", W41, NOTA, NL-Den Haag.
  • Royal Society (1985), "The Public Understanding of Science", UK London.
  • G. Turner, and B. Wynne (1992), "Risk communication: a literature review and some implications for biotechnology", in: J. Durant (ed.), Biotechnology in public. A review of recent research, Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, The Science Museum, London, UK-London, 1992, pp. 109.
  • Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsrat SWR (1992), Programm TA, Präsentation des Programms", TA 1b/1992, CH-Bern.
  • L. van Voorthuisen (1993), "Ethische Evaluatie Publiek Debat: Genetische Modificatie Van Dieren, Mag Dat?", NOTA/Universiteit Utrecht, NL-Utrecht.

© Copyright Zentrum BATS: Kontakt Legal Advisor: Advokatur Prudentia-Law Veröffentlichungsdatum: 1994-04-02

Suchen Sie bei
Passende Antikörper aus
über Produkten.