This article explores the social frameworks guiding expert and nonexpert perspectives
on medicines safety in the U.K. Scientific experts from the Committee on the Safety of
Medicines and the Medicines Commission were interviewed, and three nonexpertgroups,
including patients and health professionals, were studied by the administration of
questionnaires and focused group discussions. The research examined to what extent
these groups subscribed to technocratic or democratic approaches to medicines regula
tion and how this might be related to values toward technological risk. The results reveal
that there is substantial divergence between expert and nonexpert perspectives on
medicines regulation, and that this derives as much from value differences as from any
informational deficits. However, there seems to be some scope for shared values between
some experts and some nonexperts, especially as regards state secrecy. The article
concludes by discussing how those values could be used to foster a new "social contract
of expertise" in which scientists are more democratically accountable and patients take
more responsibility in governing medical risks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abraham, J.1995. Science, politics and the pharmaceutical industry: Controversy and bias in drug regulationLondon: UCL Press.
2.
Albrecht, T.L., G.M. Johnson, and J.B. Walther.1993. Understanding communication processes in focus groups In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, edited by D. L. Morgan, 51-64. London : Sage.
3.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernityLondon: Sage.
4.
Blaxter, M.1983. The causes of disease: Women talkingSocial Science and Medicine17:59-69.
5.
Bnckman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Ilgen.1985. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United StatesIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Calnan, M.1987. Health and illness: The lay perspectiveLondon: Tavistock.
8.
Dickson, D.1988. The new politics of scienceLondon : University of Chicago Press.
9.
Epstein, S.1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trialsScience, Technology, & Human Values20:408-37.
10.
Fiorino, D.J.1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanismsScience, Technology, & Human Values15:226-43.
11.
Fischer, F.1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertiseLondon: Sage.
12.
Frankenfeld, P.J.1992. Technological citizenship: A normative framework for risk studiesScience, Technology, & Human Values17:459-84.
13.
Giddens, A.1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysisLondon: Macmillan.
14.
-. 1984. The constitution of societyCambridge, UK: Polity.
15.
Gieryn, T.1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientistsAmerican Sociological Review48:781-95.
16.
-. 1995. Boundaries of science In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. London: Sage.
17.
Jasanoff, S.1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant scienceSocial Studies of Science17:195-230.
18.
-. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakersCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
19.
Keat, R.1981. The politics of social theory: Habermas, Freud and the critique of positivismOxford, UK: Blackwell.
20.
Kelman, S.1981. Regulating America, regulating Sweden: A comparative study of occupational safety and health policyCambridge : MIT Press.
21.
Knodel, J.1993. The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, edited by D. L. Morgan, 35-50London : Sage.
22.
Laird, F.N.1993. Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision makingScience, Technology, & Human Values18:341-61.
23.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar.1986. Laboratory lifePrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
MacGill, S.1989. Risk perception and the public In Environmental threats, edited by J. Brown, 48-66. London : Bellhaven.
25.
Medawar, C.1992. Power and dependence: Social audit on the safety of medicinesLondon: Social Audit .
26.
Morgan, D.L., and R.A. Krueger.1993. When to use focus groups and why In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art , edited by D. L. Morgan, 3-19. London: Sage.
27.
Pinch, T.1981. The sun-set: The presentation of certainty in scientific lifeSocial Studies of Science11:131-58.
28.
Richards, E.1991. Vitamin C and cancer: Medicine or politics?London: Macmillan.
29.
Schwarz, M., and M. Thompson.1990. Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choiceLondon: Harvester.
30.
Walker, M.J.1993. Dirty medicine: Science, big business and the assault on natural health careLondon: Slingshot Publications.
31.
Williams, G., and J. Popay.1994. Lay knowledge and the privilege of experience In Challenging medicine, edited by J. Gabe, D. Kelleher, and G. Williams, 118-39. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
32.
Williams, G.H., and P.H.N. Wood.1986. Common-sense beliefs about illness: A mediating role for the doctorThe Lancet2:1435-37.
33.
Wynne, B.1980. Technology, risk and participation: On the social treatment of uncertainty In Society, technology and risk assessment , edited by J. Conrad, 173-208. London: Academic Press.
34.
-. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decisions in BritainBucks, England: The British Society for the History of Science.
35.
-. 1987. Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibilityLondon: Springer-Verlag.
36.
-. 1989. Frameworks of rationality in risk management In Environmental threats, edited by J. Brown, 33-47. London : Bellhaven.
37.
-. 1995. Public understanding of science In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 361-88. London: Sage.
38.
Ziman, J.1991. Public understanding of scienceScience, Technology, & Human Values16:99-105.
