'This is a much-needed, constructively critical look at governance as the proposed alternative to top-down government approaches. It is generally relevant, not just for the new life sciences which are the occasion for this volume. Enjoy the variety of the chapters, and in particular the sustained attention to what is happening in African countries.' Arie Rip, University of Twente, The Netherlands 'In contemporary science policy debate much store is set in developing better governance in response to the growing complexity and uncertainty of innovative science. This is especially true of the life sciences, and this book, expertly edited by Catherine Lyall and her colleagues, provides a fresh and critical examination of the the tools of governance that are and should be applied within the life sciences industries: the tension between industrial, government and the wider public interest requires careful analysis and a deft handling of the legal, regulatory and broader participative processes involved. This book is a timely, highly informed and critical examination of the contemporary governance debate and recommended to those working in science studies, public policy and political science.' Andrew Webster, York University, UK 'Each chapter is well-researched and of outstanding quality... rich with insights, presents difficult material in a compact and readable manner, and develops a cogent argument... The Limits to Governance strikes a nice balance between diversity and coherence, which is a rare feat for an edited volume. Each chapter adopts unique perspectives on novel case studies, but each also contributes to the unifying ''limits to governance'' thesis. A final strength that may at first appear to be a weakness of the volume is its normative non-commitment. The central question is: what are ''successful'' or ''good'' policies for the new life sciences? There is no definitive answer to be found. Rather, the question is left open, which allows each author to define the goals in his or her own way, which in turn allows the reader to assess multiple answers.' Contemporary Sociology
