The science of the microbiome is exciting and disrupting, with far-reaching consequences for our health and well-being. It is also rapidly commercialised by providers of direct-to-consumer microbiome testing (DTC- MT). Food and diet feature prominently in these services, with microbiome-tailored dietary interventions being marketed as the pathway to a healthier gut, and, subsequently, a healthier self. The practices of DTC-MT both fuel and are fuelled by a narrative of self-management as empowerment; upon closer inspection, however, this promise proves hollow and problematic. In this work, we seek ways to engage citizens with the technology of microbiome testing while resisting the dominant narrative that accompanies it. Our efforts materialised in “Food stories for the microbiome”, a public engagement initiative about the dynamic nature of the gut microbiome and its strong connections to food and culture. The innovative aspects of this initiative are both methodological and thematic. Methodologically, we employ a distinctive hands-on (i.e. embodied and emotional) approach to public engagement. Thematically, we introduce a deliberate cultural frame to the citizens’ initial encounter with microbiome testing. As a first exercise towards a more critical encounter with microbiome testing, “Food stories for the microbiome” shows that it is possible to engage citizens with an emerging scientific topic of societal relevance on equalitarian terms. Clinical trial number: not applicable.

Safe-by-Design (SbD) is a new concept that urges the developers of novel technologies to integrate safety early on in their design process. A SbD approach could—in theory—support the development of safer products and assist a responsible transition to the bioeconomy, via the deployment of safer bio-based and biotechnological alternatives. Despite its prominence in policy discourse, SbD is yet to gain traction in research and innovation practice. In this paper, we examine a frequently stated objection to the initiative of SbD, namely the position that SbD is already common practice in research and industry. We draw upon observations from two case studies: one, a study on the applicability of SbD in the context of bio-based circular materials and, two, a study on stakeholder perceptions of SbD in biotechnology. Interviewed practitioners in both case studies make claims to a strong safety culture in their respective fields and have difficulties differentiating a SbD approach from existing safety practices. Two variations of this argument are discussed: early attentiveness to safety as a strictly formalised practice and early attentiveness as implicit practice. We analyse these perceptions using the theoretical lens of safety culture and contrast them to the aims of SbD. Our analysis indicates that professional identity and professional pride may explain some of the resistance to the initiative of SbD. Nevertheless, SbD could still be advantageous by a) emphasising multidisciplinary approaches to safety and b) offering a (reflective) frame via which implicit attentiveness to safety becomes explicit.