Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:07:25.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2020

Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Governing through Expertise
The Politics of Bioethics
 , pp. 137 - 154
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Abbott, Andrew (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Abélès, Marc and Bellier, Irène (1996). Le Commission européenne du compromis culturel à la culture du compromis. Revue Française de Science Politique, 46(3), 431–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, Gabriele and Bora, Alsons (2004). Demokratische Technikbewertung, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, Eric (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) (2003). The Big Down: Atomtech – Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/thebigdown.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death (1968). A definition of reversible coma. JAMA 205(6), 337–40.Google Scholar
Ahlstrom, Dick (2003, 5 November). Row over stem cell research funding, Irish Times.Google Scholar
Anderson, William F. (1971). Genetic Therapy. In Hamilton, Michael P., ed., The New Genetics and the Future of Man, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 15–63.Google Scholar
Anon. (1977). Complaints by patients. Lancet, 310, 1238.Google Scholar
Arnall, Alexander H. (2003). Future Technologies, Today’s Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics; A Technical, Political, and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies Technologies: A Report for the Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London: Department of Environmental Science and Technology Environmental Policy and Management Group, Faculty of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, University of London.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael N. and Finnemore, Martha (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barroso, José Manuel (2011, 21 March). Letter to Julian Kinderlerer, president of the European Group on Ethics on the ethical implications of ICT technologies.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt (2005). Liquid Life, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., De Boef, Suzanna and Boydstun, Amber (2008). The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L. and Childress, James F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 8th ed., New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beecher, Henry (1966). Ethics in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–60.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel (1960). The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Guy (1972). The Politics of Expertise, Berkeley: Glendessary Press.Google Scholar
Berg, Paul (2008). Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature, 455(7211), 290–1.Google Scholar
Berndtsson, Johakim (2012). Security professionals for hire: Exploring the many faces of private security expertise. Millennium Journal of International Studies 40(2), 300–17.Google Scholar
Best, Jaqueline (2014). Governing Failure: Provisional Expertise and the Transformation of Global Development Finance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas (2014). Participating in Transnational Policy Networks: Targeted Sanctions. In Bertucci, Mariano E. and Lowenthal, Abraham F., eds., Scholars, Policymakers and International Affairs: Finding Common Cause, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 137–54.Google Scholar
Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy 18(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boari, Cristina and Riboldazzi, Federico (2014). How knowledge brokers emerge and evolve: The role of actors’ behaviour. Research Policy, 43(4), 683–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschk, Xavier (2005, 4 November). Concerns over new EU ethics panel. The Scientist. www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23494/title/Concerns-over-new-EU-ethics-panelGoogle Scholar
Bosk, Charles L. (1999). Professional ethicist available: Logical, secular, friendly. Daedelus, 128(4), 47–68.Google Scholar
Boswell, Christina (2009). The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Kathrin (2005). Not just for experts: The public debate about reprogenetics in Germany. Hastings Center Report, 35(3), 42–9.Google Scholar
Braun, Kathrin, Herrmann, Svea Luise, Moore, Alfred and Könninger, Sabine (2010). Science governance and the politics of proper talk: Governmental bioethics as a new technology of reflexive government. Economy and Society, 39(4), 510–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Kathrin and Kropp, Cordula (2010). Beyond speaking truth? Institutional responses to uncertainty in scientific governance. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(6), 771–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggle, Adam (2009). The Kass Council and the politicization of ethics advice. Social Studies of Science 39(2), 309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Eric (2004). The dilemmas of German bioethics. New Atlantis, 5, 37–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2000). Science symposium of the German Health Ministry in collaboration with the Robert Koch Institute, held May 24–6, 2000, in Berlin. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) (2014) Activities 2011–2016. https://ec.europa.eu/archives/bepa/european-group-ethics/welcome/activities/index_en.htmGoogle Scholar
Callahan, Daniel (1973). Bioethics as a discipline. Hastings Center Studies, 1(1), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, Daniel (1990). Religion and the secularization of bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 20(4), 2–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callon, Michel, Lascoumes, Pierre and Barthe, Yannick (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, Nathan (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–70.Google Scholar
Clark, Matt (1975, 30 November). A right to die? Newsweek.Google Scholar
Clark, Nick and Verkaik, Robert (2009, 14 April). Internet privacy: Britain in the dock. ‘Big Brother’ state comes under fire as European Commission launches inquiry into secret surveillance of web users. The Independent.Google Scholar
Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) (2005, 6 April). Research in the light of human dignity [Press release]. www.comece.eu/site/en/ourwork/pressreleases/2005/article/7578.htmlGoogle Scholar
‘Competitive council: Political deal secured on 7th framework research programme’ (2006, 25 July). European Report.Google Scholar
CORDIS (Community Research and Development Information Service) (2003). Nanotechnology: Opportunity or threat? https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/20401_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
CORDIS (Community Research and Development Information Service) (2005). EURAB urges scientific community to lobby ministers on FP7 budget. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/23927-eurab-urges-scientific-community-to-lobby-ministers-on-fp7-budgetGoogle Scholar
CORDIS (Community Research and Development Information Service) (2008). Commission adopts code of conduct for responsible nano research. http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/29114_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
CORDIS (Community Research and Development Information Service) (2012). Europe plans ahead on nanobiotechnology. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/88336_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union (2003). 2550th Council meeting: Competitiveness – internal market, industry and research. C/03/355. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_03_355Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2006). Competitiveness (internal market, industry and research) [Press release: 2747th council meeting, Brussels, 24 July]. www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/90654.pdfGoogle Scholar
Crouch, Colin and Farrell, Henry (2004). Breaking the path of institutional development? Alternatives to the new determinism. Rationality and Society, 16(1), 5–43.Google Scholar
Darnovsky, Marcy (2010, 16 December). Bioethics commission on synthetic biology: ‘Prudent vigilance’ or green light?, Biopolitical Times.Google Scholar
Daviter, Falk (2009). Schattschneider in Brussels: How policy conflict reshaped the biotechnology agenda in the European Union. West European Politics, 32(6), 1118–39.Google Scholar
Daviter, Falk (2015). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 48(4), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vlieger, Pieterjan and Tanasescu, Irina (2012). Changing forms of interactions between the European Commission and interest groups: The case of religious lobbying. Journal of European Integration, 34(5), 447–63.Google Scholar
Demortain, David (2008). Standardising through concepts: The power of scientific experts in international standard-setting. Science and Public Policy, 35(6), 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demortain, David (2015). The tools of globalization: Ways of regulating and the structure of the international regime for pharmaceuticals. Review of International Political Economy, 22(6), 1249–75.Google Scholar
Demortain, David (2017). Expertise, regulatory science and the evaluation of technology and risk: Introduction to special issue. Minerva, 55(2), 139–59.Google Scholar
Department of Health (United Kingdom) (2000). Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility: A report from the Chief Medical Officer’s expert group reviewing the potential of developments in stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement to benefit human health. Cloning 2(2), 91–6.Google Scholar
Devos, Yann, Reheul, Dirk, de Waele, Danny and van Speybroeck, Linda (2006). The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environmental Biosafety Research, 5(3), 127–49.Google Scholar
Digital Europe (2013, 28 August). DigitalEurope Comments on the Risk-Based Approach. https://teknologiateollisuus.fi/sites/default/files/file_attachments/elinkeinopolitiikka_digitalisaatio_tietosuoja_digitaleurope_risk_based_approach.pdfGoogle Scholar
Digital Europe (2015). Open Statement Ahead of Expected Final Trilogue on General Data Protection Regulation, 14 December 2015. www.digitaleurope.org/resources/open-statement-ahead-of-expected-final-trilogue-on-general-data-protection-regulationGoogle Scholar
Djelic, Marie-Laure and Quack, Sigrid (eds.) (2010). Transnational Communities: Shaping Global Economic Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dobner, Petra (2007). Did the state fail? Zur Transnationalisierung und Privatisierung der öffentlichen Daseinsfürsorge: Die Reform der globalen Trinkwasserpolitik. In Wolf, Klaus Dieter, ed., Staat und Gesellschaft – fähig zur Reform? 23. wissenschaftlicher Kongress der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft. Nomos: Baden-Baden, pp. 247–61.Google Scholar
Edwards, Robert G. and Sharpe, David J. (1971). Social values and research in human embryology. Nature, 231(5298), 87–91.Google Scholar
Elvins, Martin (2003). Anti-Drugs Policies of the European Union: Transnational Decision-Making and the Politics of Expertise, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Engeli, Isabelle and Varone, Frederic (2011). Governing morality issues through procedural policies. Swiss Political Science Review, 17(3), 239–58.Google Scholar
‘EU votes on stem cells fail to solve problem’ (2003, 28 November). Times Higher Education.Google Scholar
‘EU politicians say funding plan focuses too much on biotech, genomics’ (2001, 13 November). Reuters.Google Scholar
EURACTIV (2007). NGOS urge precautionary principle in use of nanomaterials. www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/ngos-urge-precautionary-principle-in-use-of-nanomaterialsGoogle Scholar
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (n.d.). Nanomaterials. http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/nanomaterialsGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2001a). Proposal for Council Decision Concerning the Specific Programmes Implementing the Framework Programme 2002–2006 of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities, COM(2001) 279 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2001b, 12 September). EU supports and coordinates stem cell research [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr1409en.htmlGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2003a). Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, COM(2003) 390 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2003b, 9 July). European Commission proposes strict ethical guidelines on EU funding of human embryonic stem cell research [Press release]. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-03–969_en.htm?locale=enGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2004a). Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338.Google Scholar
European Commission (2004b). Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis on the Basis of a Workshop Organized in Brussels on 1–2 March 2004 by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2005a). Proposal for a Council Decision Concerning the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ Implementing the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities, COM(2005) 440 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2005b). Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009, COM (2005) 243 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2008a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee – Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials, COM/2008/0366 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2008b). Recommendation of 7 February 2008 on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research, C(2008) 424.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010a). Communication from the Commission EUROPE 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM(2010) 2020.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010b). Communication from the Commission: A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245 final/2.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010c). Communication from the Commission: A Comprehensive Approach on Personal Data Protection in the European Union, COM(2010) 609.Google Scholar
European Commission (2014). Communication from the Commission: Towards a Thriving Data-driven Economy, COM (2014) 442 final.Google Scholar
European Commission Research Directorate General (2001). Stem Cell Research at European Level.Google Scholar
European Consumer Voice in Standardisation (ANEC) and European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) (2009). Nanotechnology: Small Is Beautiful but Is It Safe? www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-PT-2009-Nano-002final.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Council (2003). Conclusions of Competitiveness Council of 3 December 2003, 2550th Council Meeting, C/03/355.Google Scholar
European Council (2006). Conclusions of Competitiveness Council of 24 July 2006, 10633/1/06/REV1.Google Scholar
European Data Protection Supervisor (2015). Opinion 7: Meeting the Challenges of Big Data. A Call for Transparency, User Control, Data Protection by Design and Accountability, Opinion 7.Google Scholar
European Digital Rights (EDRi) (2012). Initial Comments on the Proposal for a Data Protection Regulation, 27 January 2012. https://edri.org/commentsdprGoogle Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2000). Opinion 15: Ethical Aspects of Human Stem Cell Research and Use.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2006). The Ethical Aspects of Nanomedicine. Proceedings of the Roundtable Debate, Brussels, 21 March. https://ec.europa.eu/archives/european_group_ethics/archive/2005_2010/activities/docs/roundt_nano_21march2006_final_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2007a). Opinion 22: Recommendations on the Ethical Review of hESC FP7 Research Projects.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2007b). Opinion 21: Opinion on Ethical Aspects of Nanomedicine.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2012). Opinion 26: Ethics of Information and Communication Technologies.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (2014). Opinion 28: Ethics of Security and Surveillance Technologies.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2000). Resolution on Human Cloning, PE T5-0375/2000.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2005). Resolution on the Trade in Human Egg Cells, P6 TA(2005) 0074 10.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2009). Motion for a Resolution on Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials, 2008/2208(INI).Google Scholar
European Parliament (2012). Draft Report on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data by Competent Authorities for the Purposes of Prevention, Investigation, Detection or Prosecution of Criminal Offences or the Execution of Criminal Penalties, and the Free Movement of such Data, 2012/0010 (COD).Google Scholar
European Parliament (2013). Report on the Proposal for a Regulation on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), A7–0402/2013.Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council (2002). Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006). Official Journal of the European Communities L 232.Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council (2006). Regulation of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency, Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as Well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, No. 1907/2006.Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council (2016a). Regulation 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OK l119/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=ENGoogle Scholar
European Parliament and Council (2016b). Directive 2016/680 of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data by Competent Authorities for the Purposes of the Prevention, Investigation, Detection or Prosecution of Criminal Offences or the Execution of Criminal Penalties, and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ 119/89. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680&from=ENGoogle Scholar
‘European parties clash on stem cells’ (2006, 15 June). European Report.Google Scholar
European Technology Platform for Nanomedicine (2005). Vision Paper and Basis for a Strategic Research Agenda for Nanomedcine. https://etp-nanomedicine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/COVER-2005-ETPN-Vision-paper.jpgGoogle Scholar
Evans, John H. (2002). Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Evans, John H. (2012). The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eyal, Gil (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic, American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907.Google Scholar
Fagan, Madeleine (2013). Ethics and Politics After Poststructuralism: Levinas, Derrida and Lancy (Taking on the Political), 1st ed., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel (1978). The History of Sexuality, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Fougère, Martin and Harding, Nancy (2012). On the Limits of What Can Be Said of ‘Innovation’: Interplay and Contrasts between Academic and Policy Discourses. In Gripenberg, Pernilla, Sveiby, Karl-Erik and Segercrantz, Beata, eds., Challenging the Innovation Paradigm, New York: Routledge, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Fox, Renee C. and Swazey, Judith P. (2008). Observing Bioethics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friends of the Earth (2010, 20 May). Venter takes genetic engineering to ‘extreme new level’. https://foe.org/news/2010-05-venter-takes-genetic-engineering-to-extreme-new-leveGoogle Scholar
Friends of the Earth et al. (2010, 16 December). Letter to Dr Amy Gutmann, Chair, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/archive/Civil_Society_Letter_to_Presidents_Commission_on_Synthetic_Biology.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gendron, Yves, Cooper, Davic J and Townley, Barbara (2007). The construction of auditing expertise in measuring government performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Germany calls for EU ban on stem cell research’ (2006, 20 July). The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jul/20/genetics.europeanunionGoogle Scholar
Glasa, Jozef (2002). Establishment and work of ethics committees in central and eastern European countries. Medicinska, Medical Ethics and Bioethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics & Bioethics, 9(1–2), 9–12.Google Scholar
Gleenwald, Glen (2013, 6 June). ‘NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily’, The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-orderGoogle Scholar
Godin, Benoît (2015). Innovation: From the forbidden to a cliché, Journal of Business Anthropology, 4(2), 219–27.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith (1993). Ideas, Interests and American Trade Policy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda (2017). The EU data protection reform and the challenges of big data: Remaining uncertainties and ways forward. Information and Communications Technology Law, 26(2), 90–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottweiss, Herbert (2005). Stem cell policies in the United States and in Germany: Between bioethics and regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 30(4), 444–69.Google Scholar
Gros, François, Jacob, François and Royer, Pierre (1979). Sciences de la vie et sociéte´: rapport présenté à M. le Président de la République, Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Guerrier, Marc (2006). Hospital based ethics, current situation in France: Between ‘espaces’ and committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(9), 503–6.Google Scholar
Guston, David H. (1999). Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 24(4), 451–82.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy (2011). The ethics of synthetic biology: Guiding principles for emerging technologies, Hastings Center Report, 41(4), 17–22.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. (1990). When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter and Stevens, Casey (2011). Organized Science, Usable Knowledge and Multilateral Environmental Governance. In Lidskog, Rolf and Sundqvist, Göran, eds., Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, pp. 125–62.Google Scholar
Haggerty, Kevin D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 24(4), 391–414.Google Scholar
Harvey, John C. (2013). André Hellegers, the Kennedy Institute and the Development of Bioethics: The American-European Connection. In Garrett, Jeremy R., Jotterand, Fabrice and Christopher Ralston, D, eds., The Development of Bioethics in the United States, New York: Springer, pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasu, Mervi, Leitner, Karl-Heinz, Varblane, Urmas and Solitander, Nikodemus (2012). Accelerating the Innovation Race: Do We Need Reflexive Brakes? In Gripenberg, Pernilla, Sveiby, Karl-Erik and Segercrantz, Beata, eds., Challenging the Innovation Paradigm, New York: Routledge, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar
Heller, Jean (1972, 26 July). Syphilis victims in US study went untreated for 40 years, New York Times.Google Scholar
Hennette-Vauchez, Stéphanie (2010). Biomedicine and EU Law: Unlikely Encounters. European University Institute (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies), RSCAS 2010/46.Google Scholar
Highfield, Roger (2003, 5 June). Prince asks scientists to look into ‘grey goo’, The Telegraph.Google Scholar
Holzscheiter, Anna (2017). Coping with institutional fragmentation? Competition and convergence between boundary organizations in the global response to polio, Review of Policy Research, 34(6), 767–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, Robert (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilisation and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis and Praxis, 3(3), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INRA (2017). Additif alimentaire E171: Les premiers résultats de l’exposition orale aux nanoparticules de dioxyde de titane. www.inrae.fr/actualites/additif-alimentaire-E171Google Scholar
Irwin, Alan, Rohtstein, Henry, Yearley, Steven and McCarthy, Elaine (1997). Regulatory science – towards a sociological framework. Futures, 29(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, John Kurt (1995). Much ado about ideas: The cognitive factor in economic policy. World Politics 47(1), 283–310.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila and Kim, Sang-Hyun (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity. Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the fabrication of Power, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. and Baumgartner, Frank R. (2004). Representation and agenda-setting. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Jonsen, Albert (1998). The Birth of Bioethics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, Grant A. and Maloney, William A. (1997). The Protest Business? Mobilizing Campaigning Groups (Issues in Environmental Politics), Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Susan E. (2003). Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(3), 339–64.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David (2016). A World of Struggle: How Power, Law, and Expertise Shape Global Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Ian (1980, 27 November). ‘Medical ethics are not separate from but part of other ethics’, Listener, 713–15.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John (2003). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed., New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Klawiter, Maren (2008). The Biopolitics of Breast Cancer: Changing Cultures of Disease and Activism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Knill, Christoph (2013). The study of morality policy: Analytical implications from a public policy perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, Karin D. (1977). Policymakers’ Use of Social Science Knowledge: Symbolic or Instrumental? In Weiss, Carol H., eds., Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington, KT: Lexington Books, pp. 165–82.Google Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon (2005). From Asilomar to industrial biotechnology: Risks, reductionism and regulation. Science as Culture, 14(4), 309–23.Google Scholar
Krones, Tanja (2006). The scope of the recent bioethics debate in Germany: Kant, crisis, and no confidence in society. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(3), 273–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwak, James (2014). Cultural Capture and the Financial Crisis. In Carpenter, Daniel P. and Moss, David A., eds., Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–98.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. (1962). Political Ideology, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. and Kaplan, Abraham (1950). Power and Society: A Framework for Political Enquiry, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leander, Anna and Waever, Ole (2018). Exclusive Expertise: Knowledge, Ignorance and Conflict Resolution in the Global South, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leinhos, Mary (2005). The US national bioethics advisory commission as a boundary organization. Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 423–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Carol (2007). Analysing Pandora’s Box: The History of Bioethics. In Eckenwiler, Lisa A. and Cohn, Felicia, eds., The Ethics of Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Levy-Abegnoli, Julie (2016, 2 May). A right to die? Parliament Magazine. www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/printpdf/4195Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. and Cohen, David K. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Litfin, Karen (1994). Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation: New Directions in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Littoz-Monnet, Annabelle (2015). Ethics experts as an instrument of technocratic governance: Evidence from EU medical biotechnology policy. Governance, 28(3), 357–72.Google Scholar
Littoz-Monnet, Annabelle (2017). Expert knowledge as a strategic resource: International bureaucrats and the shaping of bioethical standards. International Studies Quarterly, 61(3), 584–95.Google Scholar
Littoz-Monnet, Annabelle (2020). The Fabric of Policy Knowledge: the Case of Global Mental Health, presented at the Swiss Political Science Association Annual Congress, February 2020, Lucerne.Google Scholar
Lock, Stephen (1990). Towards a national bioethics committee: Wanted: a new strategic body to deal with broad issues. British Medical Journal, 300(6733), 1149–50.Google Scholar
Lopez, José (2004). How sociology can save bioethics … maybe. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(7), 875–96.Google Scholar
Lucas, Caroline (2003, 12 June). We must not be blinded by science: Nanotechnology will revolutionise our lives – it should be regulated, The Guardian.Google Scholar
McNamee, Joe (2016). Press Release: Vote on Data Protection and Passenger Name Record package. https://edri.org/press-release-data-protection-and-passenger-name-record-package-to-be-voted-on-tomorrowGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W., Boli, John, Thomas, George M. and Ramirez, Francisco O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–81.Google Scholar
Miller, Georgia, Archer, Lisa, Pica, Erich et al. (2006). Nanomaterials, Sunscreens and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients Big Risk. https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/archive/Nanomaterials_sunscreens_and_cosmetics.pdfGoogle Scholar
‘MEPs sound alarm on stem cell research’ (2005, 21 September). European Report.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Ronald, Clark, William C., Cash, David and Dickson, Nancy (2006). Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. and Lee, Mei Hsien (2000). The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: US death penalty reform, 1956–82. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 223–39.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. (2001). Transnational communities and business systems. Global Networks, 1(2) 113–30.Google Scholar
Nathoo, Ayesha (2017). The operation that took medicine into the media age. BBC News. www.bbc.com/news/health-42170023Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978/1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (The Belmont Report). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy (1975). The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy (1995). Science Controversies: The Dynamics of Public Disputes in the United States. In Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald E., Peterson, James C. and Pinch, Trevor, eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 444–56.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte (2012, 29 June). Battle looms over European funding for embryonic stem cell research [Blog post]. http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2012/06/29/embryonic-stem-cells-euGoogle Scholar
Niederberger, Aurel (2020). Independent experts with political mandates: ‘Role distance’ in the production of political knowledge. European Journal of International Security (forthcoming)Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2000). Annual Report 2000, London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Kevin (2009, 6 May). EU to pursue stricter law on personal data, International Herald Tribune.Google Scholar
Obama, Barack (2010, 20 May). Letter to Dr Amy Gutmann, President, and Christopher H. Browne, Distinguished Professor of Political Science. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/news/Letter-from-President-Obama-05.20.10.pdfGoogle Scholar
OECD (2015). OECD Innovation Strategy 2015: An Agenda for Policy Action. www.oecd.org/sti/OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdfGoogle Scholar
Page, Edward (2003). The civil servant as legislator: Law making in British administration. Public Administration 81(4), 651–79.Google Scholar
‘Paper sees Germany, EU, USA at odds over plan for EU-wide data privacy standards’ (2012, 17 October). BBC Monitoring Europe.Google Scholar
Penissat, Etienne (2007). Entre science, administration et politique: Produire des statistiques au sein d’un ministère. Socio-logos, 2, 1–11.Google Scholar
Peters, Guy (1987). Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy-Making. In Lane, Jan-Erik, ed., Bureaucracy and Public Choice, London: Sage, pp. 255–82.Google Scholar
Peters, Guy (1995). The Politics of Bureaucracy, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Plomer, Aurora (2008). The European Group on Ethics: Law, politics and the limits of moral integration in Europe. European Law Journal, 14(6), 839–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Andrew (2010, 16 December). US bioethics commission gives green light to synthetic biology. New York Times.Google Scholar
Potočnik, Janez (2007). The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. https://ec.europa.eu/archives/european_group_ethics/archive/2005_2010/activities/docs/speech_Potocnik12feb07_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010). New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reding, Viviane (2010). Privacy matters – Why the EU needs new personal data protection rules. The European Data Protection and Privacy Conference, Brussels, 30 November. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_12_26Google Scholar
Reding, Viviane (2012). The EU Data Protection Reform 2012: Making Europe the standard setter for modern data protection rules in the digital age. Innovation Conference Digital, Life, Design, Munich, 22 January. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_10_700Google Scholar
Reding, Viviane (2014). Speech: A data protection compact for Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_14_62Google Scholar
Reich, Warren T. (1994). The word ‘bioethics’: Its birth and the legacies of those who shaped it. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 4(4), 319–35.Google Scholar
Reinalda, Bob and Verbeek, Bertjan (2003). Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Renewed controversy on stem-cell research’ (2002, 4 September). European Report.Google Scholar
‘Research: Council adopts specific programmes for FP6’ (2002, 2 October). European Report.Google Scholar
Rhinard, Mark (2010). Framing Europe: The Policy Shaping Strategies of the European Commission, Dordrecht: Republic of Letters: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Roderick A. W. and David, Marsh (1992). New directions in the study of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 181–205.Google Scholar
Richardson, Jeremy J. and Jordan, Grant (1979). Governing under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy (Government and Administration Series), Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul (1995). Oneself as Another, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robert, Cécile (2010a). Les groupes d’experts dans le gouvernement de l’Union européenne. Politique Européenne, 32(3), 7–38.Google Scholar
Robert, Cécile (2010b). Etre Socialisé à ou par l’Europe? Dispositions Sociales et sens du jeu Institutionnel des Experts de la Commission Européenne. In Michel, Hélène and Robert, Cécile, eds., La Fabrique des Européens, Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, pp. 313–46.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, David J. (1982). Were Tuskegee and Willowbrook ‘studies in nature’? Hastings Center Report, 12(2), 5–7.Google Scholar
Rothman, David J. (1991). Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers (2004). Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/nanoscience-and-nanotechnologies-opportunitiesGoogle Scholar
Rudebeck, Clare (2005, 5 April). Fertility tourists: Last week, anonymous egg and sperm donation ended in Britain. The Independent.Google Scholar
Salter, Brian (2007). Bioethics, biopolitics and the moral economy of human embryonic stem cell science: The case of the European Union 6th Framework Programme. New Genetics and Society, 26(3), 269–88.Google Scholar
Sanchini, Virginia (2015). Bioethical expertise: Mapping the field. Biblioteca della libertà. www.centroeinaudi.it/images/abook_file/213_online_Sanchini.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schneiker, Andrea and Joachim, Jutta (2018). Revisiting global governance in multistakeholder initiatives: Club governance based on ideational prealignments, Global Society, 32(1), 2–22.Google Scholar
Schön, Donald A. and Rein, Martin (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schrefler, Lorna (2010). The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance, 23(2), 309–30.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) (2007). Opinion on the Appropriateness of the Risk Assessment Methodology in Accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for New and Existing Substances for Assessing the Risks of Nanomaterials. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Seabrooke, Leonard and Henriksen, Lasse Folke (eds.) (2017). Professional Networks in Transnational Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seabrooke, Leonard and Tsingou, Eleni (2009). Revolving Doors and Linked Ecologies in the World Economy: Policy Locations and the Practice of International Financial Reform, CSGR Working Paper No. 260/09, Coventry: Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.Google Scholar
Seabrooke, Leonard and Wigan, Duncan (2016). Powering ideas through expertise:Google Scholar
Seligmann, Jean (1976, 12 April). A right to die, Newsweek.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole J. (2015). The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shillito, John (1969). The organ donor’s doctor: A new role for the neurosurgeon. New England Journal of Medicine, 281(19), 1071–2.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter (1991). On being silenced in Germany. New York Review of Books. www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1991/aug/15/on-being-silenced-in-germanyGoogle Scholar
Steven, Martin (2009). Religious lobbies in the European Union: From dominant church to faith-based organization. Religion, State and Society, 37(2), 181–91.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, revised edition, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Stone, Diane (2017). Partners to Diplomacy: Transnational Experts and Knowledge Transfer among Global Policy Programs. In Littoz-Monnet, Annabelle, ed., The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations, London: Routledge, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
Strom, Stephanie (2014, 30 May). Companies quietly apply biofuel tools to household products. New York Times.Google Scholar
‘Surgical showbiz’ (1968, 22 January). The Nation.Google Scholar
ten Have, Henk A. M. J. and Gordijn, Bert (2014). Handbook of Global Bioethics, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
‘The transplanted heart’ (1967, 15 December). Time.Google Scholar
Thomasma, David C. (2002). Early bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 11(4), 335–43.Google Scholar
Trépos, Jean-Yves (1996). La Sociologie de L’expertise, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Tsingou, Eleni (2015). Club governance and the making of global financial rules. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 225–56.Google Scholar
‘UK reacts to Google “right to be forgotten” ruling’ (2014, 21 May). BBC News. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27499601Google Scholar
‘Unable to reach an agreement, ministers close debate on stem cells’ (2003, 6 December). European Report.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2010). Assisting Bioethics Committees (ABC) Project, SHS/EST/ABC/03/REV.2.Google Scholar
United Press International (1982, 24 February). France’s first test-tube baby – A healthy, seven pound, … www.upi.com/Archives/1982/02/24/Frances-first-test-tube-baby-a-healthy-seven-pound/7909383374800Google Scholar
Verdun, Amy (1999). The role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: An epistemic community? Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 308–28.Google Scholar
Wade, Nicholas (2010, 20 May). Researchers say they created a synthetic cell. New York Times.Google Scholar
Warnock, Mary (1985). A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology, New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warnock, Mary (1988). A national ethics committee. British Medical Journal, 297(6664), 1626–7.Google Scholar
‘We climbed Everest’ (1968, 1 January). Newsweek.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. (ed.) (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 553–65.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. (1979). Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. (1982). Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. Journal of Higher Education, 53(6), 619–39.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. and Bucuvalas, Michael J. (1980). Social Science Research and Decision Making, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Weltring, Klaus-Michael (2005). Network of Excellence: Nano2Life. http://ec.europa.eu/archives/european_group_ethics/archive/2005_2010/activities/docs/weltringnano2life20dec05_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
White House (2000). National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution. Report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/media/pdf/nni.pdfGoogle Scholar
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2011). Remarks by the President in State of Union Address. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-addressGoogle Scholar
Wikler, Daniel and Barondess, Jeremiah (1993). Bioethics and anti-bioethics in light of Nazi medicine: What must we remember? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 3(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Ernst-Oliver (2020). A brief history of the General Data Protection Regulation. https://iapp.org/resources/article/a-brief-history-of-the-general-data-protection-regulationGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Duncan (2014). The Making of British Bioethics, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2011). Global Network of WHO Collaborating Centers for Bioethics: Annual Report 2010–11. www.who.int/ethics/partnerships/WHO_CC_Annual_Report_2010-2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja (2018). War and the Politics of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zito, Anthony R. (2001). Epistemic communities, collective entrepreneurship and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 585–603.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
  • Book: Governing through Expertise
  • Online publication: 30 October 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921060.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
  • Book: Governing through Expertise
  • Online publication: 30 October 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921060.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
  • Book: Governing through Expertise
  • Online publication: 30 October 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921060.009
Available formats
×