Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung ((ETHICSSCI,volume 11))

  • 180 Accesses

Abstract

The paper presented here is based almost entirely on perspectives derived from the experience of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), an integral part of the UK Parliament at Westminster. As a consequence, it has certain characteristics:

  1. 1.

    Obviously, it primarily draws on the UK situation. Indeed a major aim in making the initial conference presentation was to exchange ideas that have emerged from this context that may be of interest to other experiences. Conversely, of course, we seek to learn from those other experiences any approaches that could potentially be used for the work of POST in the future.

  2. 2.

    It is set in the context of Parliamentary Technology Assessment (PTA). This shares a central body of method and process with all forms of Technology Assessment (TA) but, certainly in the UK situation, has some additional specific features. The most important are:

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Dahl R (2000) A Democratic Paradox? Politicial Science Quarterly 115, 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J (1995) The Voice of the People, public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. Hamish Hamilton, London

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2000) Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report, Session 1999–2000, Science and Society. HL 38 Stationery Office London

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin B (1997) The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Petermann T (2000) Technology Assessment Units in the European parliamentary systems In: Vig NJ, Paschen H (eds) Parliaments and Technology, the Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York, Albany, pp 37–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell P (1998) Parliament under Pressure. Gollancz, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell P (2000) Parliament under Blair. Politico’s, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cope, D. (2001). Parliament, Paradox and Policy. In: Decker, M., Wütscher, F. (eds) Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04371-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04371-4_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07671-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-04371-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics