References and further reading
General background on ethics and new technology
- Apel, K.-O. (1988). Diskurs und Veantwortung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
- Apel, K.-O. and Kettner, M. (eds.) (1992). Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politikk, Recht und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
- Bauer M., Durant J. & Gaskell G. (1997), Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Biotechnology and the European public concerted action group. Nature, June, Vol. 387, no. 6636, p. 845–84.
- Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (eds.) (2002). Biotechnology. The mating of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. (1979). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. London: Sage.
- Clarke, S.G. and Simpson, E. (eds.) (1989). Anti-Theory in Ethics and Moral Conservatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
- Habermas, J. (1989). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
- Kettner, M. (1993). Scientific knowledge, discourse ethics, and consensus formation in the public domain. In: Winkler, E.R. and Coombs J.R. (eds.) Applied Ethics. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
- von Schomberg, R. (ed.) (1995). Contested Technology: Ethics, Risk and Public Debate. International centre for Human and Public Affairs, series B: Social Studies of Science and Technology, Buenos Aires: Tilburg.
- Webler, T., Renn, O. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Technology, Risk, and Society, Vol. 10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
On practical ethics
- Arras, J.D. (1991). Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics. “Journal of Medicine and Philosohpy”,16.
- Beauchamp, T. (1995). Principlism and its alleged competitors. “Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal”, 5: 181–198.
- Carr, S. and Levidow, L. (2000). Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty, and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops, “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”, 12: 29–39.
- Danner Clouser, K. and Gert, B. (1990). A Critique of Principlism. “The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy”, 15: 219–236.
- Jonsen, A. R. and Toulmin, S. (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Jonsen, A.R. (1991). Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics. “Theoretical Medicine”,12.
- Kaiser, M. and Forsberg, E.M. (2000). Assessing fisheries—Using an ethical matrix in a participatory process. “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”, 14: 91–200.
- Keenan, J.F. and Shannon, T. (1995). The Context of Casuistry. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
- Mayer, S. and Stirling, A. (2002). Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments—lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. “Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Ethics”, 15: 57–71.
- Mepham, T.B. (1996). Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. In Mepham, T.B. (ed.) Food Ethics. London: Routledge, pp. 101–119.
- Mepham, T.B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the ethical matrix. “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”, 12: 165–176.
- Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
- Romm, N. (1994). Continuing tensions between soft systems methodology and critical systems heuristics. Working paper no. 5. Hull: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.
- Schroeder, D. and Palmer, C. (2003). Technology assessment and the ethical matrix. “Poiesis and Praxis” 1: 295–307.
- Stirling, A. (2000). Rethinking risk: application of a novel technique to GM crops. “Technology, Innovation & Society”, 18: 21–23.
- Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. (2000). A precautionary approach to technology appraisal?: a multi-criteria mapping of genetic modification in UK agriculture. “TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten”, 3: 39–50.
- Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. (2001). A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multi-criteria mapping pilot study of a genetically modified crop in the UK. “Environment and Planning C Government and Policy”, 19: 529–555.
- Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. (1999). Rethinking Risk. A Pilot Multi-Criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agriculture in the UK. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.