Abstract
Public acceptance of plant molecular farming (PMF) for therapeutic and industrial proteins is a contentious public issue with stakeholder concerns focused on the social, environmental and regulatory challenges surrounding their development. For the public, cross-pollination with food crops, safety, potential side effects on human health and regulatory and policing issues are areas that require careful consideration when balanced with the benefits of the technology. Moreover, there is public concern over transparency and the role of business, motivation for profits and ownership and access to PMF technologies. With this background, Pharma-Factory, a 4-year EU-funded research project from the Horizon 2020-Biobased Innovation for sustainable goods and services call, is investigating new ways of producing pharmaceuticals. Concomitantly, the work is tasked with ‘public engagement’ to explore barriers to acceptance of PMF pharmaceuticals for human and animal health. In this chapter, we present the research undertaken to achieve the main objective of ‘public engagement’, the value of the process for stakeholders and science and technology partners. The approach incorporated a variety of perspectives and the development of many tools, including visuals, a glossary, an icon language, a narrative animation, posters and interactive exhibits, all relating to the perceived value and concerns of the technology under development, highlighting lived experiences of those who would be the recipients of the technologies. This extensive methodological approach not only builds scientific capacity and curiosity, through a process of participatory deliberations, but also offers a rich story around the technology which, we argue, provides the circumstances for a ‘deep and meaningful’ dialogue with the public and an authentic voice which has a legacy beyond the public engagement inside the funded project. Crucially, as the subsequent sections reveal, the public engagement story did not shy away from or ‘hide’ inconvenient questions or concerns, but rather highlighted them as opportunities for further discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- BIMDG:
-
British Inherited Metabolic Disease Group
- BSE:
-
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
- BSSA:
-
British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association
- CNR:
-
Consiglio Naztionale delle Ricerche—The Italian National Research Council
- CSIC:
-
The Spanish National Research Council
- EU:
-
European Union
- FPCCSIDA:
-
Fundacao Portuguesa a Comunidade contra a sida (Portuguese Foundation for the Community for AIDS)
- GAT:
-
Grupo De Ativistas em Tratamentos (Treatment Activist Group for HIV-Portugal)
- GM:
-
Genetically modified
- GMO:
-
Genetically modified organisms
- HCP:
-
Healthcare practitioners
- IT:
-
Information technologies
- NPBT:
-
New plant breeding techniques
- PMF:
-
Plant molecular farming
- RRI:
-
Responsible Research and Innovation
- S&T:
-
Science and technology
- SGUL:
-
St. George’s University of London
- UAL:
-
University of the Arts London
- UK:
-
United Kingdom
- UoR:
-
University of Rouen
- VTT:
-
Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus—Finnish Technical Research Centre
- WP:
-
Work package
Bibliography
Bason C (2014) Design for policy. In: Cooper R (ed) Design for social responsibility series. Gower Publishing Limited
Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M (2015) Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):414–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011
Brodie E, Cowling E, Nissen N, Paine AE, Warburton D (2009) Understanding participation: a literature review. Pathways through participation, Dec 2009. Institute for Volunteering Research, involve, NCVO, Lottery funded, p 50. http://www.sp.gov.tr/upload/Sayfa/47/files/Pathways-literature-review-final-version.pdf
Buchanan R (2001) Design research and the new learning. Design Issues 17(4):3. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056. Accessed 24 Oct 22
CNR (2015) Science, innovation and society: achieving responsible research and innovation SIS–RRI, p 6. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5a222b4b1&appId=PPGMS
Couée I (2016) Hidden attraction: empirical rationality in GMO opposition letter. Trends Plant Sci 21(2):91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.12.002
Deserti A, Rizzo F, Smallman M (2020) Experimenting with co-design in STI policy making. Policy Des Pract 3:135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1764692
Dreyer M, Kosow H, Dratsdrummer F (2018) Engaging society for responsible research and innovation: lowering barriers—innovating policies and practices. The PROSO consortium, Engaging Society for RRI. EU Grant Agreement 665947
European Commission (2001) European Governance: a white paper. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels
Evans M, Terrey N (2016) Co-design with citizens and stakeholders. In: Stoker G, Evans M (eds) Evidence-based policy making in the social sciences: methods that matter. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447329367.003.0014
Graur D (2007) Public control could be a nightmare for researchers. Correspondence. Nature 450:1156. https://www.nature.com/articles/4501156b
Hornbuckle R (2022) Project proximities: a meta review of how design addresses distance in complex collaborations. In: DRS2022: Bilbao. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.677
Hornbuckle R, Grimaldi S, Prendiville A (2020) Beyond science communication: a service design approach to building mutual stakeholder understanding in the development of novel biotechnologies. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Design4Health, Amsterdam, 1–3 Jul 2020
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Society (2000). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm. Accessed 2 Aug 22
Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the “New” Scientific Governance. Social Stud Sci 36(2):299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350
Joly PB, Rip A (2007) A timely harvest. Nature 450(7167):174. https://doi.org/10.1038/450174a
Kimbell L (2015) Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab. University of Brighton-Centre for Research and Development Faculty of Arts, University of Brighton, pp 1–43. https://researchingdesignforpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/kimbell_policylab_report.pdf
MacPhetres J, Rutjens BT, Weinstend N (2019) Modifying attitudes about modified foods: increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes. J Environ Psychol 64:21–29. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/93588/1/2019_McPhetres_etal_GM_food.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 22
Marris C, Rose N (2010) Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biol 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000549
Michael M (2012) “What are we busy doing?”: engaging the idiot. Sci Technol Human Values 37(5):528–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911428624
Muir R, Parker I (2014) Many to many: how the relational state will transform public services. Institute of Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2014/02/Many-to-many_Feb2014_11865.pdf
Norman DA, Stappers PJ (2015) DesignX: complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji 1(2):83–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.002
Selin C, Rawlings KC, de Ridder-Vignone K, Sadowski J, Altamirano Allende C, Gano G, Davies SR, Guston DH (2017) Experiments in engagement: designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Underst Sci 26(6):634–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515620970
Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 23(1):4–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science. DEMOS, Technology and Science, Policymaking, Environment, London
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the European Commission for funding this important research and emphasising the importance of public engagement in their S&T innovation calls. Thank you to the project coordinator for stepping into the unknown and trusting us, and to the Pharma-Factory consortium partners who have been open-minded and generous with their time and attention. Huge gratitude goes to the participants in the research and to the following organisations for supporting the research through their networks: British Inherited Metabolic Disease Group (BIMDG), British Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (BRAS), British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association (BSSA), ABRAÇO, Fundacao Portuguesa a Comunidade contra a sida (FPCCSIDA), Associação Positivo, Liga Portuguesa Contra a SIDA, Grupo De Ativistas em Tratamento (GAT), and SERES Portugal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prendiville, A., Hornbuckle, R., Grimaldi, S., De Albuquerque, S.M., Fuller, S. (2023). Deep and Meaningful: An Iterative Approach to Developing an Authentic Narrative for Public Engagement for Plant Molecular Technologies in Human and Animal Health. In: Kole, C., Chaurasia, A., Hefferon, K.L., Panigrahi, J. (eds) Tools & Techniques of Plant Molecular Farming. Concepts and Strategies in Plant Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4859-8_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4859-8_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4858-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4859-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)