Taking citizens seriously 01/06/2006 Authors: Sigrid Sterckx and Tom MacMillan Publisher: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, volume 19, number 3, June 2006 Institutions involved in food and agriculture have, over the past decade or so, been force-fed a potent diet of controversy, a diet partly of their own concoction. The now familiar alphabet soup – BSE, GMOs and FMD – has passed straight through some government agencies, scientific bodies and companies, causing little by way of reform. Others have digested it quietly, making modest changes to their working principles and practices. In many, however, the effect has been explosive, the reverberations loosening tightly-held assumptions about their own responsibilities, about their use of science and about their relationships with the public at large. Agricultural and food ethics has contributed to the public and policy debates on all these issues and it has been shaped by them. One of the greatest achievements of people working this field, as well as one of the most persistent challenges, has been to show that concerns outside the technical remit of many regulatory bodies – issues such as social justice or intrinsic value – are legitimate and demand attention. In effect, ethical knowledge is increasingly deemed a valid basis for public decision- making, alongside science and other forms of technical expertise. So, one of the first lessons to take from that run of food-related controversies is that the powers that be need to address a broader range of issues than many had previously considered. It also teaches us, however, that that is not enough. Policy decisions about food and agriculture also need to involve a broad range of people. In particular, it is important for public officials, scientists and other people deemed ‘experts’ or ‘professionals’ – even ethicists – to engage in dialogue with members of the public. In short, they need to take citizens seriously. The arguments for doing so are well-worn (Stirling, 2005). The thinnest, instrumental logic is that people will be more trusting if they think decision-makers have listened. The normative logic holds that it is the right way for democratic and ethical decisions to be made. The substantive logic is that people who are not ‘experts’ have valuable knowledge to contribute, and that decisions are likely to be better if that knowledge is used. The reasons why citizens should be taken seriously, then, are fairly well-established. This special issue explores how to do so, in science, in policy and in ethics. It is the second of two collections