Antonsen, T., and T. Dassler. 2021. How to do what is right, not what is easy: Requirements for assessment of genome-edited and genetically modified organisms under ethical guidelines. Food Ethics 6: 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-021-00091-y.
Anwar, A., and J.K. Kim. 2020. transgenic breeding approaches for improving abiotic stress tolerance: Recent progress and future perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21 (8): 2695. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21082695.
Béné, C., P. Oosteveer, L. Lamotte, I. Brouwer, D. De Haan, S. Prager, E. Talsma, and C. Khoury. 2019. When food systems meet sustainability—Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development 113: 116–130.
Bergmans, H., L.M. Poort, & R. Kleinjans (2016). Research Report Analyse van de Europese Wet-en regelgeving over genetisch gemodificeerde organismen. The Hague: COGEM, CGM 2016/05.
Bergmans, H., L.M. Poort, W.J. Kortleven, and R. Kleinjans. 2020. Research Report Uitspraak van het Europees Hof over gene editing en de ggo-regelgeving. The Hague: COGEM, CGM 2020/03.
Binimelis, R., and A.I. Myhr. 2016. Inclusion and implementation of socio-economic considerations in GMO regulations: Needs and recommendations. Sustainability 8: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010062.
Bovenkerk, B. 2011. The biotechnology debate. Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bovenkerk, B., and L.M. Poort. 2008. The role of ethics committees in public debate. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1): 19–35.
Brunnee, J., and S.J. Toope. 2010. Legitimacy and legality in international law: An interactional account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, R., J. Petts, and J. Evans. 2008. Social learning from public engagement: Dreaming the impossible? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5): 701–716.
Burall, S. 2018. Don’t wait for any outcry about gene editing. Nature 555 (7697): 438–439.
Castle, D., and K. Culver. 2013. Getting to ‘No’: The method of contested exchange. Science and Public Policy 40: 34–42.
Chilvers, J. 2008. Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology and Human Values 33 (3): 421–451.
COGEM. 2018. CRISPR & animals: Implications of genome editing for policy and society. Bilthoven: Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification.
Cook, J., N. Oreskes, P.T. Doran, W.R.L. Anderegg, B. Verheggen, E.W. Maibach, J.S. Carlton, S. Lewandowsky, A.G. Skuce, S.A. Green, D. Nuccitelli, P. Jacobs, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, and K. Rice. 2016. Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
De Krom, M., J. Dessein, and N. Erbout. 2014. Understanding relations between science, politics, and the public: The case of a GM field trial controversy in Belgium. Sociologia Ruralis 54 (1): 21–39.
Doudna, J. 2019. CRISPR’s unwanted anniversary. Science 366 (6467): 777.
EFSA. 2012a. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA Journal 10 (2): 2561.
EFSA. 2012b. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using Zinc Finger Nuclease 3 and other Site-Directed Nucleases with similar function. EFSA Journal 10 (10): 2943.
European Commission. 2021. Study on the status of new genomic techniques under Union law and in light of the Court of Justice ruling in Case C-528/16. Commission staff working document. Brussels: European Commission.
Felt, U., and M. Fochler. 2008. The bottom-up meaning of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 35 (7): 489–499.
Gaskell, G., and N. Allum. 2001. Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty. Politeia 17 (63): 13–25.
Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44: 167–184.
Hanssen, L. 2009. From transmission towards transaction: Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology; Thesis. Enschede: Twente University.
Hanssen, L., and B. Gremmen. 2013. Influencing governance of a public-private partnership in plant genomics: The societal interface group as a new instrument for public involvement. Public Understanding of Science 22 (6): 718–729.
Hanssen, L., J. Devilee, M. Hermans, M. Van Zijverden, and M. Van Asselt. 2018. The use of risk governance principles in practice: Lessons from a Dutch public institute for risk research and assessment. European Journal of Risk Regulation 9 (4): 632–640.
Harvey, M. 2009. Drama, talk and emotion: Omitted aspects of public participation. Science, Technology and Human Values 34 (2): 139–161.
Helliwell, R., S. Hartley, and W. Pearce. 2019. NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 779–791.
Hilbeck, A., R. Binimelis, N. Defarge, et al. 2015. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe 27: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
Hisschemöller, M., and R. Hoppe. 1996. Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge for Policy 4 (8): 40–60.
Inghelbrecht, L., G. Goeminne, G. Van Huylenbroeck, and J. Dessein. 2017. When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 543–557.
Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Oxford, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, S., and J.B. Hurlbut. 2018. A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555 (7697): 435–437.
Loomba, S., A. de Figueiredo, S.J. Piatek, K. de Graaf, and H.J. Larson. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour 5: 337–348.
Macnaghten, Ph., and M. Habets. 2020. Breaking the impasse: Towards a froward-looking governance framework for gene editing with plants. Plants, People, Planet 2 (4): 353–365.
Mampuys, R. 2021. The deadlock in European GM crop authorisation as a wicked problem by design: A need for repoliticisation of the decision-making process; Thesis. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Marchant, G., B. Allenby, and J. Herkerts, eds. 2011. The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mueller, N.G., and A. Flachs. 2021. Domestication, crop breeding, and genetic modification are fundamentally different processes: Implications for seed sovereignty and agrobiodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values. 39 (6420): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10265-3.
Nowotny, H. 2003. Dilemma of expertise. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30: 151–156.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2015. Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Pielke, R.A. 2007. The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: University Press.
Poort, L.M. 2013. Consensus and controversies in animal biotechnology: An interactive legislative approach in Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
Poort, L.M. 2016. The tension between the functions of law: ending conflict versus dynamics. In Symbolic legislation theory and developments in biolaw, ed. B. van Klink, B. van Beers, and L. Poort, 71–86. Dordrecht: Springer.
Poort, L.M., and B. Bovenkerk. 2016. Changing expectations of experts: The symbolic role of ethics committees. In Symbolic legislation theory and developments in biolaw, ed. B. van Klink, B. van Beers, and L. Poort, 268–287. Dordrecht: Springer.
Purnhagen, K., and J. Wesseler. 2021. EU Regulation of new plant breeding technologies and their possible economic implications for the EU and beyond. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13084.
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (2): 251–290.
SCENIHR, SCCS, and SCHER. 2014. Synthetic biology. Definition, opinion. scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, scientific committee on consumer safety and scientific committee on health and environmental risks.
SCENIHR, SCCS, and SCHER. 2015a. Synthetic biology II—Risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects, Opinion. Scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, scientific committee on consumer safety and scientific committee on health and environmental risks.
SCENIHR, SCCS, and SCHER. 2015b. Synthetic biology III—Research priorities, opinion. scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, scientific committee on consumer safety and scientific committee on health and environmental risks.
Scientific Advice Mechanism. 2016. Scoping paper: New techniques in agricultural biotechnology. Scientific Advice Mechanism High Level Group of Scientific Advisors.
Scientific Advice Mechanism. 2017. New techniques in agricultural biotechnology, science advice mechanism, directorate-general for research and innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
Scientific Advice Mechanism. 2018. A scientific perspective on the regulatory status of products derived from gene editing and the implications for the GMO Directive. Statement Scientific Advice Mechanism High Level Group of Scientific Advisors.
Stirling, A. 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468: 1029–1031.
Stirling, A. 2012. Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in Bioscience. PLoS Biology 10 (1): 1–5.
Taylor, C., and B. Dewsbury. 2019. Barriers to inclusive deliberation and democratic governance of genetic technologies at the science-policy interface. Journal of Science Communication 18 (3): Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030402.
Vives-Vallés, J.A., and C. Collonnier. 2020. The judgment of the CJEU of 25 July 2018 on mutagenesis: Interpretation and interim legislative proposal: Research topic leeway to operate with plant genetic resources. Frontiers in Plant Science 10: 1813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01813.
Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep sagely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment & modernity, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage Publications.