Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Landscape of Public Participation on Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Biotechnologie-Kommunikation

Part of the book series: acatech DISKUSSION ((ACATECHDISKUSSION))

Abstract

The promotion of public engagement and dialogue has become a mantra for science and technology policy discussions in the last several decades. Such calls have been embedded in the push for innovation and greater global competitiveness and the “hurdles” that such efforts have met from increasingly unsupportive if not resistant publics. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the innovation trajectory of biotechnology in many different countries. The lengthy history of the development of biotechnology (in contrast to other more recent platform technologies) and the ensuing controversies around some of its applications have provided a platform around which different publics ‘participated’ in different ways. The considerable number of public participation initiatives provides a window into both the evolution of public participation practices as well as an examination of the conditions of their use, their impacts and social learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  • Abelson, J. Cauvin, F. P.: Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications (Research Report P/06, Public Involvement Network, Canadian Policy Research Networks), Ottawa, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, I. E. Jæger, B.: “Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conference: Towards more Democratic Decision-Making”. In: Science and Public Policy, 26: 5, pp. 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous: “Without Modification: A Setback for CM in India”. In: The Economist, Feb. 11, 2010. URL: http://www.economist.com/node/15498385

  • Australian Museum: First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene Technology in the Food Chain (Lay Panel Report), Canberra: Australian Museum 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backstrand, K.: “Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers, and Citizens in Environmental Governance”. In: Global Environmental Politics, 3: 4, 2003, pp. 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle, T. C. Cayford, J.: Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci, S.: The Swiss Center for Technology Assessment — TA Swiss: Public participation in science and technology (Paper presented to the OECD Workshop on Nanotechnology, Vienna, Sept. 25, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. Hughes, T. Pinch, T.: The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, Mass: MIT press 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, A.: “Experts on Public Trial: On Democratizing Expertise through a Danish Consensus Conference”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 16: 2, 2007, pp. 163–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. Rehg, W.: Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge: MIT Press 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J.: Democracy across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. Cambridge: MIT Press 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C. Joly, P. B. Marris C.: “Disentrenching Experiment? The Construction of GM-Crop Field Trials as a Social Problem in France”. In: Science, Technology and Human Values, 33: 2, 2008, pp. 201–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bora, A. Hausendorf H.: Democratic Transgressions of Law: Governing Technology through Public Participation, Boston: Brill 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. Sarewitz D.: “Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation”. In: Minerva, 49, 2011, pp. 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B.: Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation. In: Journal of Political Philosophy, 14: 2, 2006, pp. 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B. Lentsch, J. Weingart, P.: “Representation, Expertise, and the German Parliament: A Comparison of Three Advisory Institutions”. In: Maasen, S. Weingart, P. (eds.): Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (Sociology of the sciences, 24), Netherlands: Springer 2005, pp. 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S.: “Deliberative Democratic Theory”. In: Annual Review of Political Science, 2003, pp. 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. S. and Deng, C. Y.: Interaction between Citizens and Experts in Public Deliberation: A Case Study of Consensus Conferences in Taiwan (Taiwan, 2007). URL: http://www.easts.dukejournals.Org/content/1/1/77.full.pdf+html

  • Chen D.-S. Lin K.: “The prospects of deliberative democracy in Taiwan”. In Hsin-Huang M. H. (Ed.), Asian new democracies: The Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan compared), Taipei: Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies, RCHSS, Academia Sinica, 2006, pp. 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. Wu, C. L.: “Public Participation in Science and Technology in East Asia”. In: East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1: 1, 2007, pp. 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, J.: “Scientific Expertise in Technological Controversies. The Nuclear and Recombinant DNA Debates”. In: International Political Science Review, 3: 3, 1982, pp. 315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corr Willbourn Research and Development: A Report on a Deliberative Public Engagement Exercise Concerning the Use of Biotechnology in Non-Agriculture for the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (Report prepared for AEBC), London, 15th March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deggelsegger, A. Torgersen, H.: “Participatory Paternalism: Citizens’ Conferences in Austrian Technology Governance”. In: Science and Public Policy, 38: 5, 2011, pp. 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DelIi Carpini, M. X. Cook, F. L. Jacobs, L.: “Public Deliberations, Discoursive Participation and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature”. In: Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 1, 2004, pp. 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devraj, R.: Controversy Rages over Genetically Modified ‘Brinjal’ (New Delhi, 2009). URL: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48954

  • Dryzek, J.: “Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building”. In: Comparative Political Studies, 42: 11, 2009, pp. 1379–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. Tucker, A.: “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France and the U.S.” In: Public Admin Rev, 68: 5, 2008, pp. 864–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E. Jelsøe, E. Breck, T.: “Publics at the Technology Table: The Australian, Canadian and Danish Consensus Conferences”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 10: 1, 2001, pp. 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elam, M. Bertillson, M.: “Consuming, Engaging, and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship”. In: European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 2003, pp. 233–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. Fochler, M.: “Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement”. In: Minerva, 48: 3, 2010, pp. 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F.: “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases”. In: Policy Sciences, 26: 3, 1993, pp. 165–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F.: Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, G. Allison, K.: “Technology and Citizenry: A Model for Public Consultation in Science Policy Formation”. In: Journal of Evolution and Technology, 18: 1, 2008, pp. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. Lassen, J. Kettlitz, B. Scholderer, J. Beekman, V. Berdal, K. G.: “Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods”. In: Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 2004, pp. 1181–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S./Ravetz, J.: “Science for the Post-Normal Age”. In: Futures, 25, September 7 1993, pp. 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G. Bauer, M.: “Biotechnology in the Years of Controversy: A Social Scientific Perspective”. In: Gaskell, G. Bauer M. (eds.): Biotechnology — 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy, London: Science Museum 2001, pp. 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M.: “Mode 2 Society and the Emergence of Context-Sensitive Science”. In: Science and Public Policy 27: 3, 2000, pp. 159–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. Limoges, C. Nowotny, H. Schwartzman, S. Scott, P. Trow, M.: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloede, F. Hennen, L.: “Germany: A Difference that Makes a Difference”. In: Joss, S. Bellucci, S. (eds.): Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, London: Center for the Study of Democracy 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D. Keeley, J. Newell, P. McGee, R.: Public Participation in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. A Review for DFID and UNEP-CEF, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E. Dryzek, J.: “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics”. In: Politics and Society, 34, 2006, p. 219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goven, J.: “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-Problematization”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 12: 4, 2003, pp. 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. Thompson, D.: Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (translated by Burger, T./Lawrence F.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, R. Irwin, A.: “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe”. In: Minerva, 44, 2006, pp. 167–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett, P.: “Adapting the Internet to Citizen Deliberations: Lessons Learned.” In Proceedings: Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology, IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society. Raleigh, NC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002, pp. 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett, P. Cobb, M.: “Potential Solutions to Public Deliberation Problems: Structured Deliberations and Polarization Cascades”. In: Policy Studies Journal, 34: 4, 2006, pp. 629–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J.: “Operationalizing the Public in Participatory Technology Assessment: A Framework for Comparison Applied to Three Cases”. In: Science and Public Policy, 33: 8, 2006, pp. 571–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. Dryzek, J. S. Huno, C.: “Turning up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation”. In: Political Studies, 55, 2007, pp. 362–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirakawa, H.: Provisional Report on the GM Crops Consensus Conference in Japan (Report to the Workshop “Food, agriculture and biotechnology: recent controversies, STS research, and the policy process”, February 8–9, 2001), Lisbon: CNADS — National Council for the Environment and Sustainability Development 2001. URL: http://www.hideyukihirakawa.com/GMO/cc_report_lisbon.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T. Walls, J. Rowe, G. Pidgeon, N. Poortinga, W. Murdock, G. O’Riordan T.: The GM Debate: Risk, Politics, and Public Engagement, London: Routledge 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. Migone, A.: “Explaining Local Variation in Agri-Food Biotechnology Policies: ‘Green’ Genomics Regulation in Comparative Perspective”. In: Science and Public Policy, 37: 10, 2010, pp. 781–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A.: “Risk, Science, and Public Communication: Third-Order Thinking about Scientific Culture”. In: Bucchi, M. Trench, B. (eds.): Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, London: Routledge 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S.: “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science”. In: Minerva, 41, 2003, pp. 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S.: Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the U.S. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelsoe, E. Lassen, J. Mortensen, A. Kamara, M.: “Denmark: The Revival of National Controversy over Biotechnology”. In: Gaskell, G. Bauer, M. (eds.): Biotechnology: The Years of Controversy London: Science Museum 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C. B.: “Citizen Projects and Consensus Building at the Danish Board of Technology: On Experiments in Democracy”. In: Acta Sociologica, 48, 2005, pp. 221–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. Einsiedel, E.: “Institutional Policy Learning and Public Consultation: The Canadian Xenotransplantation Case”. In: Social Science and Medicine, 73, 2011, pp. 655–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S. “United Kingdom: From ‘Public Understanding’ to ‘Public Involvement’”. In: Joss, S. Bellucci, S. (eds.): Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, London: Center for the Study of Democracy 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S. Belluci, S.: Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, London: Center for the Study of Democracy 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S. Durant, J.: Citizen Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London: Science Museum 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiba, T.: Japan’s Trial to Reflect Social Factors in the Assessment and Foresight of Technology, National Institute for Research Advancement, February 2012. URL: http://www.itas.fzk.de/eng/e-society/preprints/newapproaches/kiba.pdf

  • Kim, M. S.:“Cloning and Deliberation: Korean Consensus Conference”. In: Developing World Bioethics, 2: 2, 2002, pp. 159–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. A. Delborne, J. A. Anderson, A. A.: “Engaging Citizens: The High Cost of Citizen Participation in High Technology”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 2009, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. A. Kinchy, A. J. Autry, R.: “Local Variation or Global Convergence in Agricultural Biotechnology Policy? A Comparative Analysis”. In: Science and Public Policy, 36: 5, 2009, pp. 371–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, A. Renn, O.: “A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies”. In: Risk Analysis, 22: 6, 2002, pp. 1071–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korean National Commission for UNESCO: Korean Consensus Conference on the Safety and Ethics of Genetically Modified Food — Citizens’ Panel Report, Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L.: “Democratizing Agri-Biotechnology? European Public Participation in Technology Assessment”. In: Comparative Sociology, 8: 4, 2009, pp. 541–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. F. Lu, M. S. Chung, C. C. Yang, C. M.: “The Establishment of an Ethical Guideline for Genetic Testing through Citizen Consensus via the Internet in Taiwan”. In: Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12: 4, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeber, A. Griessler, E. Versteeg, W.: “Stop Looking up the Ladder: Analyzing the Impact of Participatory Technology Assessment from a Process Perspective”. In: Science and Public Policy, 38: 9, 2011, pp. 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markrid, A.: “Consensus Conferences on Genetically Modified Food in Norway”. In: Citizens as partners: information, consultation, and public participation in policymaking. OECD, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marres, N.: “Issues Spark a Public into Being: A Key but often Forgotten Point in the Lippmann-Dewey Debate”. In: Latour, B. Weibel P. (eds.): Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C. Joly, P. B.: “Between Consensus and Citizens: Citizen Participation in Technology Assessment in France”. In: Science Studies, 12: 2, 1999, pp. 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C. Joly, P. B. Rip, A.: “Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an ITA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines”. In: Science Technology and Human Values, 33: 1, 2008, pp. 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C. Joly, P. B. Ronda, S./Bonneuil, C: “How the French GM Controversy Led to the Reciprocal Emancipation of Scientific Expertise and Policy-Making”. In: Science and Public Policy 32: 4, 2005, pp. 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejlgaard, N.: “The Trajectory of Scientific Citizenship in Denmark: Changing Balances between Public Competence and Public Participation”. In: Science and Public Policy 36: 6, 2009, pp. 483–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A. Lassen, J. Sandøe, P.: “Democracy at its Best? The Consensus Conference in Cross-National Perspective”. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20: 1, 2006, pp. 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, T. Haug, T. Frøydis, S. Monsen, A.:“Norway: Biotechnology and Sustainability”. In: Gaskell, G. Bauer, M. (eds.): Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy, London: Science Museum, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niewöhner, J. Wiedemann, P. Karger, C. Schicktanz, S. Tannert, C.: “Participatory Prognostics in Germany — Developing Citizen Scenarios for the Relationship between Bio-medicine and the Economy in 2014”. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 2005, pp. 195–2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishizawa, M.: “Citizen Deliberations on Science and Technology and their Social Environments: Case Study on the Japanese Consensus Conference on GM crops”. In: Science and Public Policy, 32: 6, 2005, pp. 479–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishizawa, M. Renn, O.: “Responding to Public Demand for Assurance of Genetically Modified Crops: Case from Japan”. In: Journal of Risk Research, 9: 1, 2006, pp. 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD: “Engaging Citizens in Policy-Making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation”. In: Policy Brief, July 10th, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini, G.: “Biotechnologies and Communication: Participation for Democratic Processes”. In: Comparative Sociology, 8: 4, 2009, pp. 517–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrez, F.: “Taking Consumers Seriously: The Swiss Regulatory Approach to Genetically Modified Food”. In: New York University Environmental Law Journal, 585, 2000, pp. 585–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrez, F. Errass, C. Bende, K.: GMO-Regulation: Case Study for Switzerland (study for the NYU research project on International Regulatory Conflicts Over Genetically Modified Crops and Foods, project leader: Steward, R./Sands, P.), New York: New York University, 2003. URL: http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/elc/programs/Switzerland%252012-03.doc

  • Pidgeon, N. Portinga, W. Rowe, G. Horlick-Jones, T. Wallis, J. O’Riordan, T.: “Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk-Decision-Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate”. In: Risk Analysis, 25: 2, 2005, pp. 467–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rask, M. Worthington, W. Lammi, M.: Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, London: Earthscan 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer, F. Wittmer, H.: “Evaluating Deliberative and Analytical Methods for the Resolution of Environmental Conflicts”. In: Land Use Policy, 23, 2006, pp. 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. Webler, T. Wiedemann, P. (eds.): Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. Webber, M.: “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”. In: Policy Sciences, 4, 1973, pp. 155–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. Frewer, L. J.: “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation”. In: Science, Technology & Human Values 25: 1, 2000, pp. 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufeie, D. A.: Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer (Paper #R-34, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series. Harvard University). Cambridge, MA. 2011. URL: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/research_papers/r34_scheufele.pdf [accessed 17-07-12].

  • Schiffino, N. Jacob, S.: “Risk, Democracy, and Schizophrenia: The Changing Roles of Citizens in Risk Policy-Making Putting GMO Policy to the Test”. In: Journal of Risk Research, 14: 8, 2011, pp. 983–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J. Rip, A.: “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment”. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 1997, pp. 251–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R.: Issues in Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seetharam, S.: “Should the Bt Brinjal Controversy Concern Healthcare Professionals and Bioethicists?” In: Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7: 1, 2010, pp. 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, F.: “Local Steps in an International Career”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 15, 2006, pp. 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorupinski, B. Baranzke, H. Ingenslep, H. W. Meinhardt, M.: “Consensus Conferences-A Case Study: Publiforum in Switzerland with Special Respect to the Role of Lay Persons and Ethics”. In: Journal of Agriculural and Environmental Ethics, 20: 1, 2007, pp. 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S.: Power in Movement, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The National Archives: The GM Debate (2008). URL: http://www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023141438/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/debate/index.htm [accessed 12.05.2012].

  • The National Archives: Food Standards Agency: Report exploring attitudes to GM food published (2009). URL: http://www.tna.europarchive.Org/20111023080327/http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/nov/gmreport [accessed 12.05.2012].

  • The National Archives: Biotechnology Commission: Reports (2010). URL: http://www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100419143351/reports/public_attitudes_advice.shtml [accessed 12.05.2012].

  • Torgersen, H. Bogner, A.: “Austria’s Agri-Biotechnology Regulation: Political Consensus Despite Divergent Concepts of Precaution”. In: Science and Public Policy, 32: 4, 2005, pp. 277–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Est, R.: The Rathernau Institute’s Approach to Participatory TA (TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten, 3: 9, Oktober 2000). URL: http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tadn/tadn003/vest00a.htm [accessed 12.05.2012].

  • Van Est, R. van Eijndhoven, J. C. M. Aarts, W. Loeber, A.: “The Netherlands: Seeking to Involve Wider Publics in Technology Assessment”. In: Joss, S. Bellucci, S. (eds.): Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, London: Center for the Study of Democracy 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakamatsu, Y.: A Citizen’s Conference on Gene Therapy in Japan: A Feasibility Study of the Consensus Conference Method in Japan”. In: Al & Society, 13, 1999, pp. 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO Food Safety Department: Modern Food Biotechnology, Human Health and Development: An Evidence-Based Study, Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, S.: “Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 9, 2000, pp. 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Edna Einsiedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. acatech — Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Germany

    Marc-Denis Weitze

  2. Universität Bielefeld, Germany

    Alfred Pühler

  3. Deutsches Museum, Germany

    Wolfgang M. Heckl

  4. Universität Potsdam, Germany

    Bernd Müller-Röber

  5. Universität Stuttgart, Germany

    Ortwin Renn

  6. Universität Bielefeld, Germany

    Peter Weingart

  7. Helmholtz Zentrum München, Germany

    Günther Wess

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Einsiedel, E. (2012). The Landscape of Public Participation on Biotechnology. In: Weitze, MD., et al. Biotechnologie-Kommunikation. acatech DISKUSSION. Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33994-3_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation