Interactive learning and action: Realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health

Systems and Synthetic Biology

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 127-138

  Betten, A Wieke ^a   Roelofsen, Anneloes ^a   Broerse, Jacqueline E W ^a  

^a ATHENA INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Interactive learning and action; Multi stakeholder participation; Responsible research and innovation; Synthetic biology, global health

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881555049     PISSN: 18725325     EISSN: 18725333     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11693-013-9113-7     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anderson J, Strelkowa N, Stan G-B et al (2012) Engineering and ethical perspectives in synthetic biology. Rigorous, robust and predictable designs, public engagement and a modern ethical framework are vital to the continued success of synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 13: 584-590. doi: 10. 1038/embor. 2012. 81.
2. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg 18: 285-298.
3. Broerse JEW (1998) Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands.
4. Broerse JEW (2013) Naar een inclusief innovatieproces in de gezondheids-en levenswetenschappen. Inaugurele rede. VU University Press, Amsterdam.
5. Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG (2000) Requirements for biotechnology development: the necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. Int J Biotechnol 2: 275-296.
6. Broerse JEW, Zweekhorst MBM, van Rensen AJML, de Haan MJM (2010) Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: an added value? Burns 36: 217-231.
7. Bunders JFG, Broerse JEW, Keil F, Pohl C, Scholz RW, Zweekhorst MBM (2010) How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In: In't Veld RJ (ed) Knowledge democracy-consequences for science, politics and media. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 125-152.
8. Burgess DC, Burgess MA, Leask J (2006) The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998-2005: inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication? Vaccine 24: 3921-3928.
9. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Teerling J et al (2006) Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Sci Publ Policy 33: 291-304.
10. Cheyne J (1989) Vaccine delivery management. Rev Infect Dis 11: S617-S622.
11. Cooper LZ, Larson HJ, Katz SL (2008) Protecting public trust in immunization. J Pediatr 122: 149-153.
12. DeCockBuning TJ, Regeer BJ, Bunders JFG (2008) Biotechnology and food: towards a societal agenda in 10 steps. RMNO, The Hague.
13. Delgado A, Porcar M (2013) Designing de novo: interdisciplinary debates in synthetic biology. Int J Syst Synth Biol. doi: 10. 1007/s11693-013-9106-6.
14. Elberse JE, Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW (2011) Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expect. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1369-7625. 2010. 00647. x.
15. Feenberg A (1999) Questioning technology. Routledge, London.
16. Flier (2009) Health care reform: without a correct diagnosis, there is no cure. J Clin Invest 119: 2850-2852.
17. Fuller S (2000) The governance of science: ideology and the future of the open society. Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia.
18. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739-755.
19. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London.
20. Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci Technol Human Values doi: 10. 1177/0162243906291865.
21. Grin J, Grunwald A (2000) Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Heidelberg.
22. Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R (1997) Interactive technology assessment: a guide. Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
23. Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167-184.
24. Hardon A, Blume SS (2005) Shifts in global immunisation goals (1984-2004): unfinished agendas and mixed results. Soc Sci Med 60: 345-356.
25. Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge, London.
26. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1): 1-18.
27. Jain A, Bhatia P, Chugh A (2012) Microbial synthetic biology for human therapeutics. Int J Syst Synth Biol. doi: 10. 1007/s11693-012-9092-0.
28. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223-244.
29. Keasling JD (2008) Synthetic biology for synthetic chemistry. ACS Chem Biol. doi: 10. 1021/cb7002434.
30. Klein JT et al (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhauser Verslag, Berlin.
31. Kloet RR (2011) Realizing societal ambitions in innovative research programs: the case of the Dutch Ecogenomics Consortium. Oisterwijk, The Netherlands.
32. Minakawa N, Dida GO, Sonye GO, Futami K, Kaneko S (2008) Unforeseen misuses of bed nets in fishing villages along Lake Victoria. Malar J. doi: 10. 1186/1475-2875-7-165.
33. Mitcham C (1999) Why the public should participate in technical decision making. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Democratising technology: theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy. International Centre for Human and Public Affairs, Hengelo, The Netherlands, pp 39-50.
34. Navid EL, Einsiedel EF (2012) Synthetic biology in the Science Café: what have we learned about public engagement? J Sci Commun 11: A02.
35. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.
36. O'Shaughnessy PT (2008) Parachuting cats and crushed eggs the controversy over the use of DDT to control malaria. Am J Public Health. doi: 10. 2105/AJPH. 2007. 122523.
37. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Publ Policy. doi: 10. 1093/scipol/scs093.
38. Pittens CACM, Elberse JE, Visse M, Abma TA, Broerse JEW (2013) Research agendas involving patients: factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients' perspectives in programming and implementation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Regeer BJ, Bunders JFG (2009) Knowledge co-creation: interaction between science and society. A transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. RMNO/COS, The Hague.
40. Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot JW (1995) Managing technology in society. Pinter Publishers, London, New York.
41. Robinson DKR, Ruivenkamp M, Rip A (2007) Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S&T via statement-linkages: vision assessment in molecular machines. Scientometrics 70: 831-858.
42. Roelofsen A (2011) Exploring the future of ecogenomics: constructive technology Assessment and emerging technologies. Ridderprint, Ridderkerk.
43. Roelofsen A, Broerse JEW, de Cock Buning TJ, Bunders JFG (2008) Exploring the future of ecological genomics: integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 75: 334-355.
44. Roelofsen A, Kloet R, Broerse JEW, de Cock Buning TJ, Bunders JFG (2010) Guiding visions in ecological genomics: a first step to exploring the future. New Genet Soc 29: 19-36.
45. Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A, Torgersen H et al (2009) A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Int J Syst Synth Biol. doi: 10. 1007/s11693-009-9034-7.
46. Schon D, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: resolving intractable policy issues. Basic Books, New York.
47. Sismondo S (2011) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, London.
48. Swaans CPM, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG (2006) Agriculture and HIV/AIDS: a challenge for integrated and interactive approaches. J Agr Educ Ext 12: 231-247.
49. van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel RPB (2012) A transdisciplinary approach to the evaluation of medical technology: the case of cochlear implants for prelingually deaf children. In: Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG (eds) Transitions in health systems: dealing with persistent problems. VU University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 115-128.
50. Weldon, S. (2004). Public engagement in genetics: a review of current practice in the UK. A report for NOWGEN. Lancaster University. Accessed 20 Dec 2012. http://nowgen. net/publication_media/nowgenreview3. pdf.
51. World Health Organization (2010) Responsible life sciences research for global health security: a guidance document. Geneva, Switzerland.
52. Wynne B (1995) The public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
53. Wynne B (2002) Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Curr Sociol 50: 459-477.
54. Zhang JY (2012) The art of trans-boundary governance: the case of synthetic biology. Int J Syst Synth Biol. doi: 10. 1007/s11693-012-9097-8.
55. Zhang J, Marris C, Rose N (2011) The transnational governance of synthetic biology: scientific uncertainty, cross-borderness and the "art" of governance. BIOS Working Paper, BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science http://royalsociety. org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294977685. pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2013.