The Centre for BioSystems Genomics (CBSG) is a Dutch public-private partnership in plant genomics active in potato and tomato research and exploitation. Its Societal Interface Group (SIG) has been developed to inform its communication strategy and governance practice. This new instrument identifies and discusses early signals from society by bringing together people from different societal backgrounds with members of CBSG management. This interactive learning process facilitates the inclusion of public concerns and needs in scientific developments in the field of plant genomics, and simultaneously enables genomics scientists to search for more societal aims, meanings, and starting points for their research agenda. Analysis of the SIG sessions revealed that the input of public expertise is not threatening or irrational, but provides the opportunity to harness the creative potential of future users highly relevant for the development of societal practices in which plant genomics plays a role.
BauerMGaskellGDurantJ (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
CastleD (2006) The balance between expertise and authority in citizen engagement about new biotechnology. Techné9(3): 1–13.
3.
ChilversJ (2008) Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology and Human Values33(3): 421–451.
4.
DaviesSMcCallieESimonsonELehrJLDuensingS (2009) Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 338–353.
5.
DeckerMLadikasM (eds) (2004) Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment Methods and Impacts. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung Band 22. Berlin: Springer.
6.
ElliotJHeesterbeekSLukensmeyerCSlocumNSteyaertS (2005) Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner’s Manual. Brussels: viWTA.
7.
FeltUFöchlerM (2008) The bottom-up meaning of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy35(7): 489–499.
8.
FrowE (2009) A forum for doing society and genomics. EMBO Reports10(40): 318–321.
9.
GremmenB (2007) De Zwakste Schakel: Over maatschappelijk verantwoorde genomics. Inaugural address, Wageningen University. Available at: www.wu.nl
10.
GuttelingJHanssenLVan der VeerNSeydelE (2006) Trust in governance and the acceptance of GM food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science15(1): 103–112.
11.
HamlettPW (2003) Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values28(1): 112–140.
12.
HanssenL (2008) De Vlaamse Burgerconventie: Een instrument voor governance. Brussel: Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek.
13.
HanssenL (2009) Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology. PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
14.
HanssenLRouwetteEvan KatwijkMM (2009) The role of ecological science in environmental policy-making: From a pacification toward a facilitation strategy. Ecology and Society14(1): art. 43. Available at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/
15.
HarveyM (2009) Drama, talk and emotion: Omitted aspects of public participation. Science, Technology and Human Values34(2): 139–161.
16.
HessDJ (2011) To tell the truth: On scientific counter publics. Public Understanding of Science20(5): 627–641.
17.
IrwinA (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
18.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
KleinmanDLDelborneJAAndersonAA (2011) Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science20(2): 221–240.
20.
PellizzoniL (2003) Knowledge, uncertainty and the transformation of the public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory6(3): 327–355.
21.
PettsJ (2008) Public engagement to build trust: False hopes?Journal of Risk Research11(6): 821–835.
22.
PowellMColinM (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take?Science Communication30(1): 126–136.
23.
RoweGFrewerL (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values29(4): 512–556.
24.
RoweGFrewerL (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 251–290.
25.
RoweGHorlick-JonesTWallsJPoortingaWPidgeonN (2008) Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 419–441.
26.
SchibeciRHarwoodJ (2007) Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 245–255.
27.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 262–294.
28.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
29.
Van den HeuvelTRenesR-JGremmenBVan WoerkumCVan TrijpH (2008) Consumers’ images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology: “Maybe it can provide a more tasty tomato.”Euphytica159(1/2): 207–216.
30.
Van EstRHanssenL (2003) Genomics in the agro food sector: An overview of social questions and dilemmas. Technikfolgenabschätzung: Theorie und Praxis12(1): 100–105.
31.
VeenMGremmenBte MolderHvan WoerkumC (2011) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: Discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 810–825.
32.
WeblerTTulerS (2008) Organizing a deliberative planning process: What does the science say? In: OdugbemiSJacobsonT (eds) Governance Reform under Real-World Conditions: Citizens, Stakeholders, and Voice. Washington DC: World Bank, pp. 125–160.
