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.
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.
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dahl R (2000) A Democratic Paradox? Politicial Science Quarterly 115, 1
Fishkin J (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. Yale University Press, New Haven
Fishkin J (1995) The Voice of the People, public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven
Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. Hamish Hamilton, London
House of Lords (2000) Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report, Session 1999–2000, Science and Society. HL 38 Stationery Office London
Manin B (1997) The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge University Press
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
Riddell P (1998) Parliament under Pressure. Gollancz, London
Riddell P (2000) Parliament under Blair. Politico’s, London
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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