T.J. Schuitmaker, L. Bitsch, T. Metze,

W. Betten, T. de Cock Buning, J. Broerse

Athena Institute, VU Amsterdam

12/16/2013

2013Dialogue as a tool for societal valorization of environmental and industrial biotechnology

Final Report for CSG

Contents

Summary................................................................................................................................3

Research questions................................................................................................................5Post doc sub-project ecogenomics-based processes..................................................................8PhD sub-project synthetic biology...........................................................................................16Post doc sub-project monitoring and evaluation’, e.g., comparative analysis and validation of methods of the communication tools developed by the other sub-projects:............................19(Planned) Articles.....................................................................................................................19(Planned) Valorisation activities..............................................................................................19Reflection on interaction..........................................................................................................21References................................................................................................................................21

2

Dialogue as a tool for societal valorisation of environmental and industrial biotechnology.

Final report for CSG, December 16th 2013T.J. Schuitmaker, L. Bitsch, T. Metze, W. Betten, T. de Cock Buning, J. Broerse.

SummaryIn this project we explored and experimented with how a meaningful dialogue can be

operationalized most effectively in the terms of enhancing societal valorisation of

environmental and industrial biotechnology. We did so in the context of the Dutch research

consortium BE-Basic. The project is co-funded project by the CSG and BE-Basic, and runs

until January 2016. This report presents activities and results of the first two years, for both

the PhD and the Postdoc project.

In order to enhance societal valorisation of ecogenomics-based processes and synthetic

biology we formulated and implemented an interactive communication plan for organizing

recurrent dialogues between actors in science and society. For this we:

Developed a new framework for using dialogue as a tool for valorisation

Developed novel tools for communication among scientists and between scientists

and societal stakeholders

Conducted 79 interviews

Organised a focus group with citizens on synthetic biology

Organised a focus group with scientist on biobased monitoring

Organised a dialogue session with various stakeholders on biobased monitoring of

water quality

Organised nine focus groups with citizens on the biobased economy in the domains

of biofuels, water-quality and waste as an energy resource

Assessed and validated process, outcome and impact of the interaction and

communication efforts as initiated through this project

Disseminated our findings through academic publications and conferences,

educational programs and non-academic talks and publications

3

Initiated a valorisation track as part of project F08.002.01 (Integrated effect-based

risk management for sustainable bio-based production processes (dRISK)).

In this project we implemented a three-phase reflection-action method that previously had

been tested in the Ecogenomics consortium. We fine-tuned this with the implementation of a

“reprocessing-factory dialogue tool” to facilitate the creation of practical wisdom through the

formation of communities of practice (CoPs).

In the first and second phase, we analyzed relevant stakeholders and barriers within the BE

Basic consortium and among its stakeholders. Barriers were found on three levels of

cooperation: first, internally within the Flagships of BE-Basic; second, between the

Flagships; third, between scientists and external stakeholders such as policymakers,

regulatory agencies, and industry. One important barrier for the researchers, both on

fundamental level and on a more applied level, was their interpretation of the policy context

as suspicious and sometimes even hostile towards biobased monitoring tools (as opposed to

the current chemical based monitoring tools). In conclusion we found barriers stemming from

differences in interests, in interpretations, (academic) culture, and from the structure of BE-

Basic.

The third phase of this research project is still on going. What we have learned so far is that

the identified barriers can be made productive for actors to reflect on their roles and on more

or less explicit norms of biobased processes. Reflection was stimulated by the use of

forecasting exercises, and as a result we saw the first signs of the emergence of a

community of practice and the creation of practical wisdom. Societal valorisation can

therefore be seen as the process of creation of phronesis (practical wisdom).

From the PhD project on synthetic biology we learned that synthetic biology is not a topic of

discussion in society, and that current discourse is limited to the scientific realm. Preliminary

findings show that visions of the future and societal concerns (including visions on possible

win-win situations and possible end-users) are important in designing a successful dialogue.

4

Research questions

This section deals with the research questions as formulated in the research proposal and

follows that structure. At present the project has run two years of its total of four years. The

answers to the research questions are preliminary, and research question three, belonging

to the longitudinal study, cannot be answer yet.

The main research question for this project is: How can a meaningful dialogue be operationalized most effectively in the terms of

enhancing societal valorisation of environmental and industrial biotechnology in the context

of a Dutch research consortium (BE-Basic)?

In order to enhance societal valorisation of ecogenomics-based processes and synthetic

biology within the BE-Basic consortium, we have developed novel tools for communication

among scientists and between scientists and societal stakeholders. This section describes

the framework as an operationalization of a meaningful dialogue as well as the reasoning

behind it. The framework will be further operationalised and evaluated during the coming two

years. The empirical part, i.e. the current results of applying this framework, is described

under the study questions.

Activities Learning from previous research on ecogenomics

Literature research and -analysis

Developing new reflection-action dialogue tool (three phase model)

Conducting 79 interviews

Barrier and stakeholder analysis based on the new model

Further operationalization of the model by use of the reprocessing factory

Developing practical wisdom (phronesis)

ResultsA meaningful dialogue can be operationalized most effectively in the terms of enhancing

societal valorisation of environmental and industrial biotechnology in the context of a

research consortium (like BE-Basic) when:

5

a) The barriers that different participants perceive – scientific experts, industry,

governmental actors, and citizens - are made productive in the creation of practical

wisdom (phronesis).

b) Real-time actions are encouraged (see the elaboration under study question 1a)

c) A coordinator of the valorization process is appointed

d) A core team of pioneers is constructed (preliminary!)

These four elements can be achieved by analyzing as well as including the actors in the

dialogue process. For example possible end-users such as governmental actors or industry

and the general public must be included in the dialogue. These are stakeholders of

environmental and industrial biotechnologies. Their interests, positions and underlying norms

and values need to be analyzed, including the barriers these may cause. By bringing these

actors together the “reprocessing factory” focused on specific biotechnologies (in our case

biobased monitoring of water quality), real time actions and a collaborative learning process

that leads into practical wisdom are encouraged.

In order to develop the reflection-action dialogue tool, we combined three research

frameworks. The first research framework is the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA)

approach. This method for stakeholder involvement has been developed by the Athena

Institute of the VU University Amsterdam over the last 30 years as a CTA strategy to

broaden decision making on science and technology (Broerse and Bunders 2003; Roelofsen

2011). In recent years the ILA approach has been developed further to facilitate patient

participation in decision making on health research (Caron-Flinterman 2005; Elberse 2012).

In the ILA approach stakeholders from science and society participate actively from the start

through consultation and deliberation. The approach is grounded in the following principles:

active participation of relevant stakeholders on equal footing early in the innovation process,

explicit use of experiential knowledge, development of a shared vision, knowledge creation

through mutual learning, enhancement of trust relationships, coalition building, and

independent and competent process facilitation (Bunders, Broerse et al. 2010).

The second research framework is the Unravelling Persistent Problems (UPP) framework,

which has been developed to analyse barriers for novel practices that can support the

transition to a sustainable health care the system (Schuitmaker 2013). It thus can be used to

anticipate on systemic factors like power relations, institutional structures and system

dynamics. Where ILA is strong in facilitating interactive learning between stakeholders we

found out that it needed to be complemented with the UPP framework that helped to get a

6

better grip on possible barriers to the learning process, both internally (of participants) but

also barriers in the wider context of the newly developed technologies, including the political

and social climate that are vital for successful implementation. By adding this framework to

the existing ILA approach we improved the way in how to conduct a systematic stakeholder

analysis by means of desk study and interviews with key persons. The UPP framework

guides this process. We operationalized this combination of frameworks as a three-phase

reflection-action process (see figure 1).

Fig 1; Reflection-action dialogue tool

The third research framework is the “reprocessing factory”. The focus on barriers in the first

stage of the dialogue process indeed yielded a lot of information on issues and actors that

need to be addressed. However, when discussing these in a dialogue session organized

around creative thinking it appeared that new implementation routes remained unused

because the focus on barriers also limited creative thinking. To overcome this we integrated

the reprocessing factory (see fig. 2) in phase three of our reflection-action approach. The

reprocessing factory creates Communities of Practice (CoP) via the formation of a core

team. Different types of knowledge are merged and applied to practical solutions that are

constructed via a communal process of ‘reprocessing’. Participants in these CoPs create

practical wisdom (phronesis) that is ready for application (Coenders and Metze, 2009 &

Metze et al forthcoming). This reprocessing was started in the last stage of the research but

is not completed yet. In one session we matched and “reprocessed” new technical solutions

coming from Flagship 8 with professionals and policymakers who deal with the current and

7

future implications of the biobased economy (Metze, Schuitmakers, Bitsch, Broerse

forthcoming).

Fig 2; Reflection-action dialogue tool, phase three, the reprocessing factory

Post doc sub-project ecogenomics-based processes

1a) What are the lessons learned regarding the identification of ELSA issues, and match

making between academic producers and potential users in society from previous work with

respect to agenda setting in the context of ecosystem services (Ecogenomics Consortium)?

This question relates to previous work done in the ecogenomics consortium, which we re-

analysed in order to draw lessons for the design of our current research. This section

describes that analysis.

Activities Learning from previous research on ecogenomics Literature research and -analysis

8

ResultsLessons learned regarding the identification of ELSA issues, and match making between

academic producers and potential users in society from previous work with respect to

agenda setting in the context of ecosystem services (Ecogenomics Consortium) were:

That upstream engagement is necessary for effective valorization

That insight is needed into a wide range of opportunities and concerns with respect

to ethical, legal and social aspects

That a mutual learning process needs to be facilitated (Roelofsen, Boon et al. 2011).

That it is difficult to translate the results from a dialogue into real-time action. It

appears the CTA process on ecogenomics functioned as a protected space.

When stepping out of the dialogue setting into the real world, other dynamics, i.e.

those related to traditional power relationships and institutional and funding

structures, come into play which change the way dialogue outcomes are perceived

and acted upon (Kloet, Hessels et al. 2013).

In future research and dialogues need to know better what the barriers look like that

impede the impacts of CTA processes, and how these can be addressed in order to

improve the longer-term impacts, and societal valorisation of research consortia like

BE-Basic.

In the CTA process in the Ecogenomics consortium, the relevant barriers became visible only

at the end of the process. For that reason, the barrier analysis is now integrated with the

first phase of the process. Moreover, we decided to focus on specific biotechnologies and

their valorization, in our words “reprocessing”. This means that we started from “real time

actions”, namely the development of monitoring tools. New monitoring tools for water and

soil quality based on ecogenomics have the potential to safe-guard the environment and

agricultural activities and to ensure that these are safe, healthy and profitable. Furthermore

the monitoring tools can play a vital role in making sure a biobased economy is truly

sustainable. Our research has supported and supports development and implementation of

these new tools by bringing together scientists, developers and end-users to co-shape a

sustainable future.

9

1b) What past and current interaction and communication patterns between different

stakeholders (included in the public-private partnership of the consortium and beyond) can

be identified?

Activities Interviews

Actor analysis external actors

Past and current interaction and communications patterns between different stakeholders of

BE Basic (and more specifically flagship 8) were:

a) Completely absent in the case of public engagement (see also project on societal

roadmap for the bio based economy). We made a start with organizing 9 focus

groups on the subject of a biobased economy: in which the general conclusion is that

the general public’s associations are positive when thinking about the biobased

economy. Their concerns are mostly related to costs of implementation,

inconvenience in use, and image of biobased: it is still too much for green freaks.

When visioning a desired future, scaling down and development of new technologies

seem essential. In the case of synthetic biology, there are no concrete products. The

scientists’ expect that citizens and societal groups will protest. From the focus group

sessions it appears citizens find the subject to be very interesting, and that they,

overall, do not hesitate to share their thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Furthermore, many

participants stated that they liked being involved in the debate and learned something

from the session. These results show that this research project open up possibilities

for further future public engagement, and could be used as input for the first draft of

the research agenda setting.

b) Past and current communication patterns are complicated between the scientific

experts and industry. On individual level there are pioneers both among experts and

in industry. However, as soon as the company level is included, the chemical

industrial partners but also other industries from outside the consortium (for example

drinking water companies, beer breweries, and agriculture) are hesitant to

collaborate. There are mainly two reasons:

a. They are afraid new monitoring tools will lead to more rules and regulations

b. They are afraid that associations with eco-toxicology will damage their

image

10

c) Communication between the scientific experts and the experts from more applied

consultancy firms are rather fruitful. These applied experts are able to translate the

monitoring tools to a broader (policy) context, and to also experiment with those.

Also, they think of real time and practical ways in which these new technologies can

be included in industrial and governmental improvements toward a biobased

economy. For example they implement biotechnologies in triades – that combine

three monitoring ways – toxic, ecological and ecotoxicological. Moreover, these

triades are implemented in a collaborative process in which stakeholders from

industry and government are included (most of all on soil not so much on water).

d) Communication with governmental actors, such as STOWA and some of the Public

Drinking Water companies and the Waterboards (for example Waternet) is fruitful:

they all have the ambition to monitor more effectively and consider the eco-

toxicologists as a missing link: their monitoring tools can create a more integrated

and cost-effective way of monitoring the water quality and waste streams.

e) However, there is a broad range of governmental actors that merely implement

current policies. These actors (some of the waterboards and provinces and parts of

national government) constrain the development and implementation of new

environmental and industrial biotechnologies: for example, the content and the

process of construction of guidelines for assessing soil quality currently intervenes

with the development of marketable tools for the actors involved. This is also true for

the European Waterdirective (KWR) that does include ecological indicators, but is still

focussed on (lists) of norms of chemicals, and thereby leaves little room for eco-

toxicologists.

Hence, the post-docs identified barriers for implementation of new ecogenomics-based tools

both internal and external to the BE-Basic program. The internal barriers stress the

challenges in cooperation between scientific disciplines, and between academic and non-

academic partners. The external barriers are concerned with more systemic barriers that are

embedded in governmental but also business practices and institutions.

1c) What are the main opportunities and problems to consolidate and further enhance

potential valorisation options in the context of ecogenomics-based processes within BE-

Basic (including technical, ethical, legal and social aspects)?

Activities 35 interviews with stakeholders in flagship 8 and with external stakeholders

Focus group with project leaders from flagship 8

11

SWOT analysis (barriers)

Another 40 interviews to deepen the understanding of the barriers

Two reflection-presentations with flagship 8 to reflect on the issues that emerged

(see research question 1e).

Nine focus groups with citizens to investigate possible Ethical Legal Social Aspects

around new biobased technologies.

ResultsThe main opportunities and problems that we learned from the interviews with partners of

FS8 and external actors address the following issues (see also attachment: Schuitmaker et

al: ‘Dialogue as a tool for societal valorisation’).

In the following table, we present an overview of all opportunities and barriers found in the

research so far.

Opportunity BarriersCollaboration within BE BASIC consortium

Symbioses of vision Conflicts of interests

Development of more effective and sustainable biotechnology, for example eco-toxicological monitoring tools

Interdisciplinary cooperation between FS members poses challenges (e.g. combining data, specific vs. generic toolbox, patents vs. scientific publication)

Cooperation between FSs (horizontals): focus on detecting pollutants in waste streams not necessarily favoured by companies

Results of the collaboration can be more central to BE BASIC: coordinator for societal valorization

Orientation on output of patens

Collaboration outside BE BASIC consortium

Shared vision Conflicts of interests

Pioneers among the industrial partners, governmental partners and other experts (for example,

Policy makers more easily can use norms in their policies. These are easier to command

12

Waterboards and industry and STOWA or KWR) want to collaborate to encourage a paradigm shift toward a more integrated approach of water and waste monitoring.

Rather than focus on absolute norms that may not be passed; a more realistic account of risks needs to be included.

This means that the water quality and the quality of waste streams should be related to how they are being used. A combination of toxics, ecological and eco-toxicology is necessary. Less focus on the measuring of toxics. Biotechnologies can be used and developed for that purpose.

Technological development might make it possible for industry to self-monitor in a more easy and cost reducing way.

and control. Even though these might not lead to the desired policy outcome

Focus on detecting pollutants in water or waste streams not necessarily favored by companies

Industry is only focused on cost-efficiency not in sustainability

Current precautionary principle is leading. This is good for nature conservation but is at strained terms with the management of risks (too high standards for other functions).

Countries are also not encouraged to do more than required by European directives, such as the water directive.

Cumulative effects of toxics in the water are not included in current policies or measurement methods.

Policy pillars make collaboration and integrated view complicated

Less financial resources for environmental improvements

More integrative knowledge from the policy and industrial practice and science

The biotechnologies New biotechnologies might contribute to this paradigm shift. At least the experts developing these tools do so.

Public is not engaged: too little knowledge of possible public resistance.

Efficiency of monitoring is an opportunity:

Biobased monitoring as an example of an industrial or

13

Less standard measuring of toxics is necessary.

environmental biotechnology uses animals, or embryo’s which might lead to societal resistance.

Data exchange between industry and for example Waterboards and experts.Polar compounds measuring

Quicker and cheaper bio-assaysUniversities should conduct fundamental research

1d) What are the options for a design to solve these problems (in terms of content,

communication, tools, management and process variables)?

Activities Development of “reprocessing factory” as a way to make barriers more productive in

a dialogue

12 interviews to prepare the workshop

One workshop in which we implemented the reprocessing factory and started to

build a community of practice

Four different tools [water quartet, desired futures, barriers, prioritizing and

resolutions to barriers] to address the barriers, include them in the workshop and

make them productive

ResultsThe results of this stage are very preliminary, as we’ve only organized one dialogue with the

reprocessing factory as a model. The tools within the workshop appeared to have created

reflective conversations on the barriers, rather than to exclude those from the “safe space”

as is often the case in deliberations or other forms of CTA.

The workshop contributed to the creation of a community of practice (learning network) for

the eventual creation of practical wisdom: participants agreed to continue to work on the

more integrated approach to water monitoring. Moreover, some of them made arrangements

to collaboratively lobby at the EU level, and to collaborate in sharing data.

14

1e) To what extent did the designed approach of ‘1d’ optimize and consolidate societal

valorisation on issues identified in ‘1c’.

Activities Dialogue session

ResultsAs said before, the optimization took place by including the barriers in the dialogue rather

than pushing those out. Furthermore, we focused on real time and practical applications (in

this case the eco-toxicological monitoring tools). This resulted in collaboration and the

promise of a continuation of this collaboration. However, we cannot claim a direct impact on

a more biobased economy.

15

PhD sub-project synthetic biology

The PhD project runs for another two years. The results below are tentative and are based

on interviews, a focus group, and participation in the iGEM competition, a science-society

interaction project for students researching the implementation of synthetic biology.

The PhD student is continuing the vision assessment project in close collaboration with

scientists in Flagships 6 in which we have so far had focus groups with citizens and

interviewed BE-Basic scientists and research partners. Currently three focus groups are

organised. Next to this, more time is spent on exploring other actor groups such as those

involved in the iGEM competition, the DIY biology community and others.

2a) What are the lessons learned regarding the identification of ELSA issues and match

making between academic producers and potential users in society from previous work with

respect to agenda setting in the context of ecosystem services (Ecogenomics Consortium)?

Activities

The main activities were:

literature research into the previous work on ecogenomics by Kloet (2011)and

Roelofsen (2011)

literature research into ILA methodologies

comparative analysis of methodologies

paper

ResultsSee the paper: ‘Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for

global health’ (Betten, Roelofsen et al. 2013).

Lessons are:

That upstream engagement is necessary for effective valorization

That insight is needed into a wide range of opportunities and concerns with respect

to ethical, legal and social aspects

That a mutual learning process needs to be facilitated (Roelofsen, Boon et al. 2011).

16

That it is difficult to translate the results from a dialogue into real-time action. It

appears the CTA process on ecogenomics functioned as a protected space.

When stepping out of the dialogue setting into the real world, other dynamics, i.e.

those related to traditional power relationships and institutional and funding

structures, come into play which change the way dialogue outcomes are perceived

and acted upon (Kloet, Hessels et al. 2013).

In future research and dialogues need to know better what the barriers look like that

impede the impacts of CTA processes, and how these can be addressed in order to

improve the longer-term impacts, and societal valorisation of research consortia like

BE-Basic.

2b) What past and current interaction and communication patterns between different

stakeholders (included in the public-private partnership of the consortium and beyond) can

be identified?

So far in this project we have studied perceptions, visions and interactions of and between

the following stakeholder groups: the public at large, synthetic biologists, valorisation

experts, members of the iGEM community1 and bio-artists. Overall, it is still the case that

synthetic biology is not a topic of discussion in society, and current discourse limits itself to

the scientific realm. As the main focus of this project is to investigate how we could design a

fruitful science society dialogue it is more interesting to look into possibilities for this, and in

that sense we also investigate current communication between science and industry,

valorisation efforts, engagement practices and so on.

2c) To what extent are these lessons applicable to critically assess scientific developments,

identify concerns and create potential win-win’s in pursuing a bio-based industry based on

synthetic biology processes?

As we are working towards a science society dialogue one of the focal points is to account

for opportunities and concerns that come with the field of synthetic biology. Potential win-

win’s between developers and end-user groups are, as we explained above, not yet a point

of interest in this study. However, visions of the future (also on these win-win sitations,

possible end-users etc.) are important in designing a dialogue (see e.g (Roelofsen 2008).

1 iGEM stands for Genetically Engineered Machine and is an international student competition in synthetic biology. The competition has a large influence on the development of synthetic biology, also and especially with regard to ELSA and opportunities for a fruitful science society dialogue

17

2d) What are the options for a design to realize societal valorisation (in terms of content,

communication, tools, management and process variables)?

We have conducted several interviews with valorisation experts, and we have also

discussed valorisation in our interviews with synthetic biologists. Based upon this we can

make a few comments on the options for a suitable design. First of all, the term valorisation

is in itself rather complex. The term is in place to describe both economic and societal value

creation and also focus on the process dimension of development (rather than only on

outcomes, such as patents or spin-offs), but in both actor groups it was expressed that

valorisation was used and though to be about the creation of economic value, especially (but

not only) in final stages of (product) development. Next to that, the term is not common in the

English-speaking world.

For the above reasons we have chosen to conduct this project in the context of Responsible

Research and Innovation (RRI). RRI aims also to create societal and economic value in

research and development and in that sense relates very much to the concept of

valorisation.

Coming back to question we then argue that all the steps taken towards a science society

dialogue are in a sense part of the design ‘to realize societal valorisation’. However, since

we are in the phase of identifying perceptions and visions of stakeholder it is too early to

reflect on this or share results on how our dialogue was designed.

2e) Which determinants of the designs are crucial, to address ELSA aspects and to realize

societal valorisation in the context of synthetic biology within the framework of BE- Basic?

Bearing in mind that we have two more years to come in the project we would like to stress

that the most important part of the design so far is the conceptualisation of the four crucial

elements of the Interactive Learning and Action approach (see figure) (Betten, Roelofsen et

al. 2013). This model allows us to gain insight into how a successful interactive innovation

process (in which ELSA are addressed)

should be designed. Below we

would like to elaborate shortly on the

elements depicted in the figure.

18

Post doc sub-project monitoring and evaluation’, e.g., comparative analysis and validation of methods of the communication tools developed by the other sub-projects:

This project runs for another two years. The research questions below are part of the final meta-analysis and will be dealt with the coming two years.

3a) What is in the most recent literature described and theorized regarding enabling and disabling factors in societal valorisation?

3b) To what extent did the designed approaches of ‘1d’ and ‘2d’ enhance societal valorisation.

3c) Which determinants of the designs are crucial to address ELSA aspects and to realize societal valorisation in the context of pursuing a bio-based industry?

3d) What does a generalized model on societal valorisation look like, based on empirical research in the different subprojects (3b and 3c) and the literature (3a)?

(Planned) Articles

Betten, A. W., A. Roelofsen, et al. (2013). "Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health." Systems and Synthetic Biology 7(3): 127-138.

T.J. Schuitmaker, A. Roelofsen, T. de Cock Buning, J.E.W. Broerse (2014, forthcoming). Dialogue as a tool for societal valorisation of environmental and industrial biotechnology. In preparation (will be submitted to Policy Sciences when the results of the dialogue sessions are analysed in order to strengthen the discussion of the results of phase one and two)

T. Metze, T.J. Schuitmaker, L. Bitsch, J. Broerse (2014, forthcoming). Knowing in action: science-society dialogue on eco-toxicological monitoring for integrated water-management. In preparation

The PhD student will publish 4 more articles. She is halfway the project.

(Planned) Valorisation activities

1. Dialogue workshop: reprocessing monitoring tools / 9 focus groups (see above)

2. Current valorisation track with dRISKAs a project we participated in general valorisation projects of BE-Basic like the brochure

for the public of BE-Basic in 2013. Furthermore, we attended the following conferences

where we presented posters or held talks:

2013 Annual BE-Basic conference

19

2012 & 2013 Annual BE-Basic conference (in total four poster presentations)

Second ESF Research Conference in Partnership with RU “Towards a sustainable

bio-based society: aligning scientific, cultural and societal agendas for bio- innovation

society” 6-7 Dec 2012. (poster presentation)

Second ESF Research Conference in Partnership with RU “Towards a sustainable

bio-based society: aligning scientific, cultural and societal agendas for bio- innovation

society” 6-7 Dec 2012.resentation)

Pacita (conference paper presentation)

SB6.0 conference, London, 9-11 July 2013 (Poster presentation)

3. Educational activities at the Athena Institute. We coordinated, and lectured in bachelor’s and master’s courses specifically on

subjects of knowledge valorisation, knowledge co-production, ecogenomics and

synthetic biology:

Sept 2012 & 2013:Master course Managing Science and Technology in Society

May 2012 & 2013: Honours Course Communication and Innovation in the Health and

Life Sciences

Jan 2013: Bachelor course Biomedical Sciences and Society

Feb 2013: Master course Synthetic Biology

Feb 2013-August 2013: Supervision 5 internship MSc. students on BE-Basic topics

December 2013: Master course on Policy, Politics and Participation a.o. 9 focus

groups on biobased economy

4. Other presentations

Presentations yearly meeting Flagship 8 and project meetings of DRisk

27-11-12, Presentation RIVM ‘synthetic biology & communication’ symposium

29-11-12, Workshop RIVM employee day

24 -10-13, Presentation, Geo engineering workshop, University of Sussex

20

Reflection on interactionIn our research process we operationalize ‘interaction’ in several ways. We interact with our

study subjects (scientists, business, policy and citizens) both in studying their perceptions

and ideas of the biobased economy and the role of their activities, but also in facilitating

valorisation through our focus groups and dialogue exercises. Furthermore we interact with

students at the VU in lectures and work groups, where we use BE-Basic as a case to study.

In this way the early stage knowledge of BE-Basic is put to use for teaching purposes further

enhancing the value of the knowledge in the consortium as well as the value of our research

project.

Advantages of interaction are the personal and up close access that we are granted to on

going innovation processes in the BE-Basic consortium and thereby the biobased economy.

The drawback of this close contact is guarding the perceptions of us by our research

subjects. We do experience being seen as consultant ‘to do the work’ of valorisation and

integration instead of as the facilitators of those processes. Also we have experienced that

our research subject think they can determine how far we may go in organising dialogues

and interactions (A barrier that we identified in the focus group, interviews and informal

conversations with researchers of flagship 8). Such resistance ‘here and no further’ is a sign

that we are operating at the front-end of experiments in interactions between scientist and

societal actors. When it becomes uncomfortable, that is the moment to persist: by being

sensitive to the perceived barriers of our study subject, but also to make those barriers

productive by using them as an opportunity for reflection like we do in our dialogue workshop

on biobased monitoring (Metze, Schuitmaker, Bitsch, Broerse, forthcoming).

References

Betten, A. W., A. Roelofsen, et al. (2013). "Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health." Systems and Synthetic Biology 7(3): 127-138.

Broerse, J. E. W. and J. F. G. Bunders (2003). "Requirements for biotechnology development: the necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process." International Journal of Biotechnology 2(4): 275-296.

Bunders, J. F. G., J. E. W. Broerse, et al. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? Knowledge Democracy – Consequences for Science, Politics and Media. . R. J. In ’t Veld. Heidelberg, Springer: 125-152.

Caron-Flinterman, J. F. (2005). A new voice in science patient participation in decision-making on biomedical research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Elberse, J. E. (2012). Changing the health research system. Patient participation in health research, VU University.

Kloet, R. (2011). Realizing Societal Ambitions in Innovative Research Programs: The Case of the Dutch Ecogenomics Consortium, VU University.

21

Kloet, R. R., L. K. Hessels, et al. (2013). "Understanding Constraints in the Dynamics of a Research Programme Intended as a Niche Innovation." Science and Public Policy 40(2): 206-218.

Roelofsen, A. (2011). Exploring the future of ecogenomics: Constructive technology assessment and emerging technologies, VU University.

Roelofsen, A., W. P. C. Boon, et al. (2011). "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?" Research Policy 40(3): 341-354.

Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J.E.W., De Cock Buning, T.J. and Bunders, J.F.G. (2008). "Exploring the future of ecological genomics: integrating CTA with vision assessment." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(3): 334-355.

Schuitmaker, T. J. (2010). Chapter 2. Persistent problems in the Dutch healthcare system: an instrument for analysing system deficits. Transitions in Health Systems. J. F. G. Bunders and J. E. W. Broerse. Amsterdam, VU University Press: 21-48.

Schuitmaker, T. J. (2012). "Identifying and unravelling persistent problems." Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79(6): 1021–1031.

Schuitmaker, T. J. (2013). Persistent problems in the Dutch health care system: learning from novel practices for a transition in health care with the UPP framework, University of Amsterdam.

Coenders, M., & Metze, T.A.P. (2009). Praktische wijsheid in een Community of Practice. In G. Smid & E. Rouwette (Eds.), Ruimte maken voor onderzoekende professionaliteit: Onderzoekend handelen, handelend onderzoeken (pp. 372-383). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Metze, T. T.J. Schuitmaker, L. Bitsch, J. Broerse (2014, forthcoming). Knowing in action: science-society dialogue on eco-toxicological monitoring for integrated water-management. In preparation

22