ArticleMaastricht journal of European and comparative law2009
THE POLITICS OF RISK AND EU GOVERNANCE OF HUMAN MATERIAL.
Article in Maastricht journal of European and comparative law, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revaluing donor and recipient bodies in the globalised blood economy: transitions in public policy on blood safety in the United Kingdom.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This paper examines the politics of EU risk governance in relation to human material. It is argued that the political context has informed the way in which risks in relation to various types of human material have come to be defined as policy problems at EU level. In turn, this has influenced the design and/or persistence of institutional arrangements to manage such problems. It is further argued that this political context has resulted in a significant level of disconnection in risk governance in the area. This has happened in two ways. First, there has been a growing level of disconnection between institutional and stakeholder demands for a more expansive approach to risk governance in the area and the narrowly-circumscribed competence under Article 152(4)(a) EC, which permits the adoption of risk regulation regimes that set minimum standards of quality and safety in relation to blood, tissue/cells and organs. Second, it has led to the development of institutional arrangements that promote a bifurcated approach to risk governance, specifically in relation to blood and tissues/cells. Although a hybrid of traditional and new governance mechanisms have been employed to address this problem of disconnection, this has nevertheless added a further layer to already complex institutional arrangements for risk governance in the area. It is suggested that a more integrated approach to EU risk governance in relation to human material is needed. Implementing such an approach would contribute to greater clarity, transparency and accountability in decision-making processes, and this could enhance public trust in what is a politically-sensitive area of governance at EU level.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.