From April 28th to May 2nd, 2005, the 16 members of the Citizens’ Jury on Genetically Modified Plants (Borgerjury: Nye GM-planter – ny debat) met to produce recommendations on genetically modified plants.
Problems and Purpose
Background History and Context
In the mid-1980s, the Danish government created the Danish Board of Technology (DBT), a body of experts set up to assess technological innovations and their impact for Danish society. The DBT was asked to initiate reflections and to formulate recommendations on various technology-related issues. In order to involve citizens in its work, the DBT developed the format of consensus conference composed of lay citizens selected by lot, and gathered for a few days to deliberative on a topic (with the help of experts). In total, the DBT organized more than 20 deliberative processes between 1987 and 2011 before being resolved. 
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The Danish Board of Technology, now the Danish Board of Technology Foundation, organized this deliberative process.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Methods and Tools Used
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The jury started with hearings from experts and public officials, before the lay citizens start deliberating. In the end, they issued a report listing the elements that made consensus among them. 
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The resulting report was transmitted to the DBT. It was then included in the publications of the DBT, and distributed to politicians in government and parliament.
The majority of the 16 participants in the citizens’ jury responded positively to the opportunities presented by the new GM plants and their financial potential. Therefore, they recommended that it would be beneficial to grow them in Denmark. However, it should be done under strict control and regulations. In particular, the impact on ground water must be examined carefully. GM plants for industrial use must not pollute more than traditional production; and that GM products must be labelled. Finally, one of the clearest messages from the citizens is not about advantages, disadvantages and conditions with regard to GM plants, but about the necessity of informing the population about these matters as part of an ”open and nuanced debate”. It is unclear how these recommendations have been integrated into new public policies. 
Analysis and Lessons Learned
This entry is based on:
 the POLITICIZE dataset. More information can be found at the following links:
- Paulis, Emilien; Pilet, Jean-Benoit; Panel, Sophie; Vittori, Davide; Close, Caroline, 2020, "POLITICIZE Dataset", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z7X6GT, Harvard Dataverse, V1
- Pilet J-B, Paulis E, Panel S.,Vitori D & Close C. 202X The POLITICIZE Dataset: an inventory of Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science.
 Data was sourced from OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.