NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... them for the better. From that perspective, Jan Existed, said "Thank God for Dolly. " A fierce and intelligent debate is necessary to define and keep track of the ethical borders of modern technology. Dolly not just led to a discussion on human cloning. In some countries it eventually transformed into a wider debate on biotechnology, which is still going on. The Dolly event shows it to be unwise to ignore the initial public outcries.
The task is to go beyond the populist and symbolic character of the initial debate and leave the trenches to start an open and critical debate. How to stimulate and organize a more profound and sophisticated debate around science and technology? How to encourage politicians to take notice of the public debate? The experiences with the public debate on cloning indicate that across countries the appreciation for public debate and the relationship between the public debate and the political system widely differs.
In Italy, South Korea and the United States the link between the public and political sphere was very weak. In contrast, in Switzerland, Denmark, Great Britain and the Netherlands public opinion and debate was valued, and attempts were made to open up science and politics to new forms of public engagement and public scrutiny. Bereano remarked that the public debate around science and technology is fragmented or non-existent. In America laissez-faire liberalism is dominant. In this ideological climate, politicians willingly refuse to take democratic control over technology. Consequently, responsibility is handed over to large corporations and small innovative firms and - although a considerable number of people are opposed to cloning - the public is sidelined in the name of progress.
Attempts to stimulate the public debate are ill funded and NGO's that strike notes of warning are marginalized. According to Allansdottir, the voice of the public was also totally absent in Italian politics. In South Korea, high trust in science has so far prevented a public debate on this matter. Organizing a consensus conference on cloning can be seen as a brave attempt to both stimulate societal debate as well as to give it a proper place within the political decision-making process. Dolly created a window of opportunity for the people who wanted to stand up for a proper societal debate on science and technology. The political system in the other four European countries - Switzerland, Denmark, Great Britain and the Netherlands - did pay attention to the public debate.
The way in which this was done clearly differed from country to country. The Swiss biotechnology debate in the frame of the referendum came to include cloning. Pro-active policy making and a (by that time) mature public debate created a smooth landing of the cloning issue. Besides Switzerland, no other country was prepared for the public unrest created by the Dolly event. In response to the public agitation the governments in Great Britain consulted interest groups on the cloning issue. The Wellcome Trust contributed to this consultation by generating information about the public's opinion on cloning.
In Denmark a parliamentary hearing was organized after which some quick decisions were made. It seems as if Danish politicians saw the public unrest as a public indictment of the political system. To take away the blame they speeded up the decision-making process. But in doing so, they shortened the period of reflection. As a result, the public debate was not given a proper place within the political debate. The complaints about regulation afterwards seem to plead for a longer debating period before actual decisions are made.
In the Netherlands politicians called for a period of reflection for the general public and decision-makers to come to their senses and make up their minds in order to reach well-considered decisions. In contrast to the Danish hearing that closed the debate, the Dutch hearing started a wider public debate and set the agenda for the public discussion. So after selecting the issues a period of reflection followed. While the Danes were making quick decisions as if they were responding to a crisis, the Dutch parliamentarians marked time and awaited the results of the public debate. In summary, the British government consulted interest groups by means of questionnaires.
In Denmark, parliamentarians interrogated experts and interest groups during a public hearing on the basis of which decisions were made. This procedure has not been perceived within Danish society as an unqualified success. Parliamentarians have not come up with sustainable and widely accepted solutions and decisions. A point in case here is the installation of a biotechnology early warning system to avoid the political system from being taken by surprise again.
Switzerland was the only country that was prepared for the cloning discussion. This was accidentally so, and more important, it was prepared because some grassroots organizations had initiated a referendum. The public debate had prepared politicians, scientists and citizens for a debate on cloning. The societal debate thus functioned as an efficient and sensitive early warning system. It can be concluded that while the political system in Italy, South Korea and the United States ignored the informative potential of a societal debate, the British and Danish political system did not ignore this, but failed to fully make use of it. In Switzerland and the Netherlands the societal debate was utilized more fully.
In both countries the debate was institutionalized. In Switzerland the debate was carried out in the frame of the referendum on biotechnology, in the Netherlands by means of public funds. A second characteristic of these two debates was their longevity. Time is needed to create a critical and informative public sphere around politics.
Politicians from their side have the public responsibility to seriously take account of that discursive public sphere. Anmerkung [ 1 ] The Rathenau Institute has produced three English publications on its societal debate on cloning. "Clones and cloning: the Dutch debate" gives a good overview of the activities organized by the Rathenau Institute. "Cloning surrounded by concern: conclusions of the societal debate" is a translated version of the Rathenau Institute's report to parliament. "The Citizens Panel on cloning seeks boundaries: final declaration" contains the standpoints of the Citizen's panel on cloning.
Free research essays on topics related to: public debate, political system, science and technology, decision making process, early warning
Research essay sample on Societal Debate On Cloning
