In the wake of the economic crisis of 2008 banks had to undergo “stress tests” to analyse their robustness. Recently also the political systems have lived through challenging times. Yet nobody seems to have developed stress tests for democraties. The governance of science and technology may hold such tests with its complex and value-ladden problems, such as genetic testing, reproductive medicine, genetically modified organisms or nuclear energy. Over the last decades most democracies had to struggle with such intractable policy problems. At the same time democracies since the 1970s are faced with an increasing demand for Citizen participation. Many political systems have tried to meet these demands with the introduction of new political instruments. The governance of science and technology has seen the rise of a variety of technology assessments, some of which involve citizens. The question then is if representative democracies have successfully managed to include participatory elements into the governance of science and technology. In the framework of this paper the efforts of nine OECD countries to regulate xeno-transplantation, the transplantation of animal organs or cells into human bodies, will be analysed. These countries have found different political solutions to the problem and utilised a variety of instruments and processes. What was the impact of the different instruments, such as participatory and expert led technology assessments, public communication efforts and expert committees, on the regulatory activities? How democratic were the instruments themselves? Did exercises involving lay-citizens make a difference? Did the democracies meet the stress test?
