Deliberating risks under uncertainty: Experience, trust, and attitudes in a Swiss nanotechnology stakeholder discussion group

NanoEthics

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 143-154

  Burri, Regula Valérie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Citizen panel; Nanotechnology; Risk; Uncertainty; Upstream public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 34748850005     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-007-0015-6     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. European Commission (2005) Some figures about nanotechnology R&D in Europe and beyond. Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, Research DG, 8 December 2005. http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology (accessed 28 May 2006)
2. Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Human Values 16(1):111-121
3. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
4. Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268-291
5. Stilgoe J, Wilson R (2005) Public engagement with science. Demos, London
6. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, London
7. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London
8. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
9. Ziman J (1991) Public understanding of science. Sci Technol Human Values 16(1):99-105
10. Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19-46
11. Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19-46
12. Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead
13. Duden B, Samerski S (2007) "Pop genes": An investigation of "the gene" in popular parlance. In: Burri RV, Dumit J (eds) Biomedicine as culture: Instrumental practices, technoscientific knowledge, and new modes of life. Routledge, New York, London, pp 167-190
14. Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 2(4):321-330
15. Maranta A et al (2003) The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociol 46(2):150-165
16. Wynne B (1992) Representing policy constructions and interests in SSK. Soc Stud Sci 22(3):575-580
17. TA-Swiss (n.d.). Citizens' projects (discussion forums), http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_arbe_dial.html (accessed 28 September 2006)
18. TA-Swiss (2005) Publifocus Nanotechnologie, projektantrag für die durchführung eines partizipativen verfahrens zum thema "Nanotechnologie-bedeutung für gesundheit und umwelt." TA/ CD 05-22, 9 September 2005. Bern: Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Schweizerischen Wissenschafts- und Technologierat
19. ETC Group (2003) The big down: Atomtech-technologies converging at the nanoscale. ETC Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
20. Swiss Re (2004) Nanotechnology: Small matter - many unknowns. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich
21. Madison (2005) Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology, April 24, 2005. http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/ research/Nano/nanoreport42805.pdf (accessed 5 April 2006)
22. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2005) Nanotechnology - ethical and social issues: Results from New Zealand focus groups. Research Report No. 281. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/ story_images/1330_rr281_s4140.pdf (accessed 24 June 2006)
23. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK's citizens' jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law & Business (May/June), 167-78
24. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London
25. Nanojury UK (n.d.) http://www.nanojury.org (accessed 28 September 2006)
26. TA-Swiss (n.d.) Publifocus "Nanotechnology", http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_pfna.html (accessed 28 September 2006)
27. TA-Swiss (2006a) Publifocus "Nanotechnologien-bedeutung für gesundheit und umwelt." Projektbeschrieb für die durchführung eines dialog-verfahrens mit bürgerinnen und bürgern. Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Schweizerischen Wissenschafts- und Technologierat, Bern
28. TA-Swiss (2006b) Know your nano! Information brochure for publifocus "nanotechnology, health and the environment." Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, Bern
29. TA-Swiss (2006c) Public reactions to nanotechnology in Switzerland. Report on publifocus discussion forum "Nanotechnology, health and the environment". TA-P 8/2006. Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, Bern
30. Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. Durant J, Bauer M, Gaskell G (eds) (1998) Biotechnology in the public sphere. An European sourcebook. Science Museum, London
32. Gaskell G, Bauer M (eds) (2001) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. Science Museum Publications, London
33. Bauer M, Gaskell G (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
34. Gaskell G, Bauer M (eds) (2006) Genomics and society: Legal, ethical, and social dimensions. Earthscan, London
35. CASH (2006) CASH - Die wirtschaftszeitung der schweiz, 17 August 2006. Ringier, Zofingen
36. Drexler EK (1986) Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. Anchor, New York
37. Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T (eds) (1987) The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
38. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) (1999) The social shaping of technology, 2nd ed. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK
39. Yearley S (1994) Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: An overview. Public Underst Sci 3:245-258
40. Bauer M, Durant J, Evans G (1994) European public perceptions of science. Int J Public Opin Res 6(2):163-186
41. Evans G, Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Underst Sci 4(1):57-74
42. Gaskell G et al (2001) In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In: Gaskell G, Bauer M (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. Science Museum Publications, London, pp 53-79
43. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211-220
44. Jasanoff S (1995) Product, process or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In: Bauer M (ed) Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 311-331