Abstract

Recently, some scholars have identified a relationship between the building of public credibility and the idea of "public science" - putting more public in policymaking. Some scholars have also found that major players in this relationship are national bioethics committees who seem to act as "mechanisms" of public deliberation. Moreover, these findings have led to the belief that creating a national dialogue is more than just a task incorporated into the normal functions of national bioethics committees; it is a primary duty. There are however some scholars who disagree with this understanding of national bioethics committees. The so-called failures of the President's Council on Bioethics (PCBE) and the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) to foster national debates on stem cell research brings into question several things, firstly, what place does the public have in science policy? And second, how do reputable advisory committees claim to bridge the gap between science policy and the general public? What I intend to show in this thesis is that national bioethics committees have become numerous and have grown to become significantly important to the policy process. However, their role as "mechanisms" of public deliberation is limited by several factors. These factors or variables include but are not exclusive to: (1) the political environment; (2) institutional independence; and (3) participation technique.