What do civil society organisations expect from participation in science? Lessons from Germany and Spain on the issue of GMOs

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 287-299

  Ferretti, Maria Paola ^a   Pavone, Vincenzo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CIVIL SOCIETY; FARMING SYSTEM; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 69949141231     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234209X436527     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abels, G 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of PTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103-117.
2. Barcena, I 2005. European governance and green social movements: transportation and GMO policies in Spain. Human Ecology Review, 12(2), 120-132.
3. Bauer, M W and G Gaskell 2002. Biotechnology: the Making of a Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Benhabib, S ed. 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Bernauer, T 2003. Genes, Trade and Regulation: the Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Bora, A 2005. Biopolitics, citizenship, and the 'iron cage' of law. Discussion Paper, Workshop 'Normativities', Bielefeld, 7-9 July.
7. Bora, A and H Hauseldorf 2006. Participatory science governance revisited: normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), August, 478-488.
8. Bora, A and W van den Daele 1997. Partizipatorische Technikfolgenabschätzung. Das Verfahren des Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin zu transgenen herbizidresistenten Kulturpflanzen. In Diskursive Verständigung? Mediation und Partizipation in Technikkontroversen, eds. S Köberle, F Gloede and L Hennen, pp.124-150. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
9. Borras, S 2006. Legitimate governance of risk at the EU level? The case of genetically modified organisms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 61-75.
10. Börzel, T 1997. What's so special about policy networks? An exploration of the concept and its usefulness in studying European governance. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 16(1), 25 August.
11. Brendle, U and C Hey 1992. Umweltverbände im internationalen Vergleich. Wechselwirkung, 55, 6-11.
12. Carolan, M S 2008. Democratising knowledge - sustainable and conventional agricultural field days as divergent democratic forms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(4), 508-528.
13. De Marchi, B 2003. Public participation and risk governance. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 171-176.
14. Doyle, C and P Patel 2008. Civil society organization and global health governance: challenges to legitimacy. Social Science and Medicine, 66(9), May, 1928-1938.
15. Dryzek, J 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. EC 2001. Democratising expertise and establishing scientific reference systems. European Commission Document of 2 July 2001. Working Group 1B. Available at: , last accessed 25 January 2006.
17. EC 2006. The state of play of civil dialogue in DG RTD. Available at:
18. EC 2007. Public engagement in science - report of the science and society session. Lisbon Presidency of the EU, Brussels. Available at: last accessed 21 January 2009.
19. Ellis, R and C Waterton 2004. Environmental citizenship in the making: the participation of volunteer naturalists in UK biological recording and biodiversity policy. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), April, 95-105.
20. Evans, R and A Plows 2007. Listening without prejudice? Rediscovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 827-854.
21. Felt, U et al. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. European Commission Working Document, EU Brussels.
22. Ferretti, M P 2007. Why public participation in risk regulation? The case of authorising GMO products in the European Union. Science as Culture, 16(4), 377-395.
23. Funtowicz, S and J R Ravetz 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Social Theories of Risk, eds. S Krimsky and D Goding, pp. 251-274. Westport: Praeger.
24. Gill, B 1993. Technology assessment in Germany's biotechnology debate. Science as Culture, 4(1), 69-84.
25. Gottweis, H 1998. Governing Molecules: the Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Boston: MIT Press.
26. Greenwood, J 1997. Representing Interests in European Unions. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
27. Hammerbacher, R 2003. Diskurs Grüne Gentechnik. Abschlussbericht der Moderation. Hammerbacher Gmbh, Osnabrück. Available at last accessed 20 September 2008.
28. Hampel, J et al 1998. Germany in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: a European Sourcebook, eds. J Durant, M W Bauer and G Gaskell, pp. 63-77. NMSI Trading Ltd.
29. Hansen, J 2006. Operationalizing the public in participatory technology assessment: a framework for comparison applied to three cases. Science and Public Policy, 33(8), October, 571-584.
30. Irwin, A and B Wynne eds. 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Jasanoff, S 1996. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 393-418.
32. Jasanoff, S 2003. Technology of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
33. Jasanoff, S ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: the Co-production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.
34. Joerges, C and J Neyer 2003. Politics, risk management, World Trade Organisation governance and the limits of legalisation. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 219-225.
35. Katzestein, P J 1987. Policy and Politics in West Germany: the Growth of a Semi-Sovereign State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
36. Kerr, A et al 1997. The new genetics professional discursive boundaries. Sociological Review, 45(2), 279-303.
37. Kurzer, P and A Cooper 2007. 'What's for dinner?' European farming and food traditions confront American biotechnology. Comparative Political Studies; 40, 1035-1059.
38. Levidow, L 2007. European public participation as risk governance: enhancing democratic accountability for AgBiotech policy. Technology and Society, 1, 19-51.
39. Levidow, L, S Carr and D Wield 2005. European Union regulation of agro-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), August, 261-276.
40. Liberatore, A and S Funtowicz 2003. Democratizing expertise, expertizing democracy: what does it mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 146-150.
41. Macnaghten, P et al 2005. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27, 268-291.
42. Marris, C et al 2001. Final Report on Public Attitudes to Biotechnology in Europe. Research project funded by the ECC, Contract n. FAIR CT 98-3844.
43. Martello, M L 2004. Global change science and the Arctic citizen. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), April, 107-115.
44. Mayer, S 2003. Science out of step with the public: the need for public accountability of science in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 177-181.
45. NHI, National Institute for Health 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. Available at:
46. Nowotny, H 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 151-156.
47. Pellizzoni, L 2001. The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 59-86.
48. Rothstein, H 2004. Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Participative risk regulation and the reform of the UK Food Safety Regime. Public Administration, 82(4), 857-881.
49. Rowe, G et al 2008. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 419-441.
50. Sarewitz, D 2006. Liberating science from politics. American Scientist, 94, 104-106.
51. Skorupinski, B and K Ott 2000. Technikfolgenabschätzung und Ethik. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung in Theorie und Praxis. Zürich: vdf.
52. Steffek, J et al 2007. Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governace. New York: Palgrave.
53. Stirling, A 2006. Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23, 95-107.
54. Thoyer, S and B Martimor-Asso 2007. Participation for Sustainability in Trade. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
55. Todt, O 1999. Social decision making on technology and the environment in Spain. Technology and Society, 21, 201-216.
56. Todt, O 2003. Designing trust. Futures, 35, 239-251.
57. Todt, O and J L Luján 2000. Spain: commercialization drives public debate and precaution. Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 237-245.
58. Toft, J 2005. Denmark's regulation of agro-biotechnology: coexistence bypassing risk issues. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), August, 293-300.
59. Torgersen, H and A Bogner 2005. Austria biotechnology regulation: political consensus despite divergent concepts of precaution. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), August, 277-284.
60. Van den Daele, W 1995. Technology assessment as a political experiment. In Contested Technology: Ethics, Risk and Public Debate, ed. R von Schomberg, pp. 63-89. Tilburg: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
61. Weingart, P 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), June, 151-161.
62. Wilsdon, D and R Willis 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
63. Wynne, B 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50(3), 459-477.
64. Wynne, B 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.