Xenotransplantation research had a hype in the late 1990s and early 2000s and was by then considered a therapeutic option with huge financial potential which was to become clinical standard practice in the near future. Driven by these economic hopes and by the expectation that xenotransplantation might alleviate the so-called organ shortage, governmental actors in different countries but also international organizations (WHO, OECD, Council of Europe) and EU institutions started to think about the implications of xenotransplantation and how to regulate this potential new technology.

Xenotransplantation, however, for several reasons was not an uncontroversial technology. In the aftermath of food crises, the GMO conflict and blood scandals connected to HIV and hepatitis, xenotransplantation not only raised serious risk problems – connected to xenozoonosis – there were also basic human rights and animal welfare at stake. These were hotly discussed not only within science but also by different NGOs.

In this situation many countries and international organizations carried out Technology Assessment (TA) and participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) procedures which should inform policy-makers about what to do.

In my presentation I will compare attempts of TA and pTA on xenotransplantation in different countries and international organization (Austria, Canada, Denmark, Latvia, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Switzerland OECD, and the European Commission). The paper addresses the following questions: How was xenotransplantation framed as a topic in these countries and institutions? In which settings of TA and pTA was xenotransplantation discussed? Who was included and excluded in policy making? In what way? What was the impact of TA and PTA on policy-making? What can we learn from these examples for negotiating techno-scientific futures in complex societies?

The paper draws on an international comparative research project about the impact of citizen participation in knowledge-intensive policy fields (CIT-PART) financed by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (Project Number: SSH-CT-2008-225327). For this research, document analysis of literature and media reports has been carried out. One main source, however, were interviews with people involved in pTA and TA either as participants, researchers, civil servants, politicians, stakeholders and practitioners of TA and pTA. For preliminary results see www.cit-art.at.