Paving the way for a softer regulation of CRISPR in Norway: public engagement as window dressing

References

• Antonsen, Marie Auensen. 2017. (U)Mulige medborgere: Engasjement, etikk og emosjoner i styring av human bioteknologi i Norge. PhD thesis. Doctoral theses at NTNU;2017:261. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Antonsen, Marie, and Nora Levold. 2014. “Bioteknologinemda og Jakten på Hybride Praksiser.” In Biopolitikk: Kropp, Kunnskap og Teknologi, edited by Nora Levold, 97–128. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, R. Sherry. 1969. “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation”. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4): 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225
   Google Scholar
• Asdal, Kristin. 2015. “What Is the Issue? The Transformative Capacity of Documents.” Distinktion 16 (1): 74–90.
   Google Scholar
• Baltimore, David, Paul Berg, Michael Botchan, Dana Carroll, R. Alta Charo, George Church, Jacob E. Corn, et al. 2015. “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification.” Science 348 (6230): 36–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bioteknologirådet. 2017. Genteknologiloven – invitasjon til offentlig debatt. https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2017/12/Genteknologiloven-uttalelse-invitasjon-til-offentlig-debatt-web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bratlie, Sigrid, Kristin Halvorsen, Bjørn K. Myskja, Hilde Mellegård, Cathrine Bjorvatn, Petter Frost, Gunnar Heiene, et al. 2019. “A Novel Governance Framework for GMO. A Tiered, More Flexible Regulation for GMOs Would Help to Stimulate Innovation and Public Debate.” EMBO Reports 20 (5): e47812. https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252embr.201947812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braverman, Irus. 2019. “Editing the Environment: Emerging Issues in Genetics and the Law.” In Gene Editing, Law, And the Environment, edited by Irus Braverman, 1–17. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, Michel. 1999. ““The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.” Science, Technology and Society 4 (1): 81–94.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, Jane. 2014. “Governing in the Context of Uncertainty.” Hastings Center Report 44 (6): S31–S33. doi:10.1002/hast.395.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis”. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, James, and Matthew Kearnes. 2020. “Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 45 (3): 347–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg, and Fern Wickson. 2011. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 20 (6): 826–845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission n.d. “Responsible Research & Innovation.” https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation.
   Google Scholar
• GenØk-Senter for biosikkerhet. 2018. Innspill til Bioteknologirådets forslag om endring av genteknologiloven.” https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Gen%C3%98k.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, Sarah. 2016. “The Treatment of Social and Ethical Concerns in Regulatory Responses to Agricultural Biotechnology: An historical analysis”. In Innovation in agricultural genomics: Overcoming complexities in the intellectual property–regulatory complex, edited by Emily Marden, R. Nelson Godfrey, and Rachael Manion, 42–67. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, Sarah, Delphine Thizy, Katie Ledingham, Mamadou Coulibaly, Abdoulaye Diabaté, Bakara Dicko, Samba Diop, et al. 2019. “Knowledge Engagement in Gene Drive Research for Malaria Control.” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13 (4): e0007233. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0007233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havforsknings institutt. 2018. “Uttalelse fra Havforskningsinstituttet angående debattinspill fra Bioteknologirådet om endringer i Genteknologiloven.” [Submission dated 15 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Havforskningsinstituttet.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, Stephen. 2019. “Governing Gene Editing: A Constitutional Conversation.” In Gene Editing, Law, and the Environment, edited by Irus Braverman, 187–193. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Horst, Maja. 2007. ““Public Expectations of Gene Therapy Scientific Futures and Their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship.” Science, Technology & Human Values 32 (2): 150–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurlbut, J., Krishanu Saha Benjamin, and Sheila Jasanoff. 2015. “CRISPR Democracy: Gene Editing and the Need for Inclusive Deliberation.” Issues in Science and Technology 32: 266–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan. 2001. “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences.” Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan. 2006. “The Politics of Talk Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 299–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan. 2008. “STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 583–608. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2019. Can Science Make Sense of Life? Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Justesen, Lise. 2005. “Dokumenter i Netværk.” In Kvalitative Metoder i et Interaktionistisk Perspektiv, edited by Margaretha Järvinen, and Nanna Mik-Meyer, 215–234. København: Hans Reitzels forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kjeldaas, Sigfrid, Trine Antonsen, Sarah Hartley, and Anne Ingeborg Dyhr. 2021. “Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway’s Gene Technology Act: An Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations.” Sustainability 13 (14): 7643. doi:10.3390/su13147643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klima- og miljødepartementet. 2020. “Oppnemning av eit offentleg utval som skal greie ut om genteknologi, nye teknikkar og reguleringa av genmodifiserte organismar.” https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/oppnemning-av-eit-offentleg-utval-som-skal-greie-ut-om-genteknologi-nye-teknikkar-og-reguleringa-av-genmodifiserte-organismar/id2785259/.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, Todd. 2017. “«Vigilante Environmentalism: Are Gene Drives Changing How We Value and Govern Ecosystems?” In Gene Editing, Law, and the Environment: Life Beyond the Human (1st ed.), edited by John Patterson, Julian Webb, and Irus Braverman, 95–111. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. 1996. Vi har Aldri Vært Moderne. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Legemeiddelindustrien. 2018. “Innspill Genteknologiloven.” [Submission dated 14 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Legemiddelindustrien.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, Phil. and Julia S. Guivant. 2011. “Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom”. Public Understanding of Science 20 (2), 207–220. doi:10.1177/0963662510379084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, Phil. 2015. “Comparing GM Crops in Mexico, Brazil and India.” In Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops, edited By Phil Macnaghten and Susana Carro-Ripalda, 136–150. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, Phil. 2020. “Towards an Anticipatory Public Engagement Methodology: Deliberative Experiments in the Assembly of Possible Worlds Using Focus Groups.” Qualitative Research 21: 3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, Morgan. 2022. “Taking responsibility, making irresponsibility: Controversies in human gene editing”. Social Studies of Science 52(1): 127–143. doi:10.1177/03063127211025631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natur og Ungdom. n.d. Innspill til forslag fra Bioteknologirådet om framtidig regulering av genmodifiserte organismer (GMO). https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Natur-og-Ungdom.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Naturverforbundet. 2018. “Innspill til forslag fra Bioteknologirådet om framtidig regulering av genmodifiserte organismer (GMO).” [Submission dated 14 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Naturvernforbundet.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nofima. n.d. “Høringsuttale frå Nofima til forslaget til framtidig GMO-regulering frå Bioteknologirådet.” https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Nofima.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norges Bondelag. 2018. «Innspill til Bioteknologirådets offentlige debatt om endring av genteknologiloven.» [Submission dated 09 April 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Norges-Bondelag.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norges miljø-og biovitenskapelige universitet. 2018. “Innspill til Bioteknologirådets forslag om endring av genteknologiloven.” [Submission dated 15 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/NMBU-Fakultet-for-Biovitenskap.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norsvin, Geno, and Aquagen. 2018. “Innspill til Bioteknologirådet om endring av Genteknologiloven.” [Submission dated 15 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Geno-Norsvin-AquaGen.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. 2018. The Gene Technology Act: Invitation to Public Debate. http://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2010/07/genteknologiloven-engelsk-hele-for-web-v-2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. 2018. Proposal for Relaxation of Norwegian Regulations for Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) with Applicability also for EU Legislation. http://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2019/03/2019-04-16-Genteknologiloven-komplett-ENGELSK.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science – Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oikos. 2018. Innspill fra Økologisk Norge til Bioteknologirådet om fremtidens Genteknologilov.” [Submission dated 15 May 2018]. https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Oikos.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Robert D. J., Sarah Hartley, Patrick Middleton, and Tracey Jewitt. 2021. “Knowing When to Talk? Plant Genome Editing as a Site for Pre-Engagement Institutional Reflexivity.” Public Understanding of Science 30 (6): 740–758. doi:10.1177/0963662521999796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35 (5): 601–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statens leggemiddelverk. 2018. “Legemiddelverkets innspill til Genteknologiloven.” [Submission dated 29 Mary 2018]. https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Statens-Legemiddelverk.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stengers, Isabelle. 1999. For en Demokratisering av Vitenskapene. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, Andy. 2007. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down.” Science Technology & Human Values 33: 262–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tichelkamp, Thomas. n.d. “Del 1 - Generell diskusjon om GMO i landbruket.” https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Thomas-Tichelkamp.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Universitetet i Oslo. 2018. “Høring – fremtidens genteknologilov – utsetting av genmodifiserte organismer.” [Submission dated 30 May 2018] https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2018/04/Universitetet-i-Oslo.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wahlberg, Ayo, Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, Guangxiu Lu, Ole Döring, Yali Cong, Alicja Laska-Formejster, et al. 2013. “From Global Bioethics to Ethical Governance of Biomedical Research Collaborations.” Social Science and Medicine 98: 293–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, Brian. 2005. ““Reflexing Complexity: Post-Genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science.” Theory, Culture & Society 22 (5): 67–94. doi:10.1177/0263276405057192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar