Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: 'upstream' towards sustainability?

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volumn 16, Issue 8-9, 2008, Pages 1010-1013

  Rogers Hayden, Tee ^a   Pidgeon, Nick ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Public participation; Stakeholder empowerment; Sustainability; Upstream

Indexed keywords

PUBLIC RELATIONS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; STAKEHOLDER EMPOWERMENT; UPSTREAM;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 38949132693     PISSN: 09596526     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.013     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bimber B. Nanotechnology and social movements. Workshop on VOSON Australian National University. Canberra, Australia; Aug 3-4, 2006.
2. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N. Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering's inquiry. Public Understanding of Science (Special issue); in press.
3. Carnegie K.L., Nielsen H., and Glover C. Stepping upstream 'naturally' for cleaner production through community environmental learning. Journal of Cleaner Production 8 5 (2000) 391-396
4. Wynne B. Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S., Markle G.E., Petersen J.C., and Pinch T. (Eds). Handbook of science and technology (1995), Sage, London 361-388
5. Royal Society. The public understanding of science (1985), The Royal Society, London
6. Phillips of Worth Matravers Lord, Bridgeman J., and Ferguson-Smith M. The BSE inquiry report (2000), The Stationary Office, London
7. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and society. Third report, HL Paper 38 (2000), HMSO, London
8. POST. Open channels: public dialogue in science and technology (report 153) (2001), Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London
9. Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., Rowe G., Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., and O'Riordan T. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? public debate. Risk Analysis 25 (2005) 467-480
10. Rowe G., Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., and Pidgeon N.F. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM nation? public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science 14 (2005) 331-352
11. Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Rowe G., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., and O'Riordan T. On evaluating the GM nation? public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genetics and Society 25 (2006) 265-288
12. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties (2004), RS/RAEng, London p. vii
13. HM Government. Response to the royal society and royal academy of engineering report: nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties (2005), Department of Trade and Industry, London
14. Wilsdon J., and Willis R. See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream (2004), Demos, London
15. Macnaghten P., Kearnes M., and Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?. Science Communication 27 (2006) 268-291
16. Arnall A., and Parr D. Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution. Technology in Society 27 1 (2005) 23-38
17. Wilsdon J., Wynne B., and Stilgoe J. The public value of science: or how to ensure that science really matters (2005), Demos, London
18. Rogers-Hayden T., and Pidgeon N. Reflecting upon the UK's citizens' jury on nanotechnologies: Nano Jury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business 2 3 (2006) 167-178
19. DEMOS. The think tank for everyday democracy: the nanodialogues, .
20. Fadeeva Z. The promise of sustainability collaboration - promises fulfilled?. Journal of Cleaner Production 3 (2005) 165-174
21. Dryzek J.S. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses (1997), Oxford University Press, Oxford
22. Rogers-Hayden T., and Hindmarsh R. Modernity contextualises New Zealand's royal commission on genetic modification: a discourse analysis. Journal of New Zealand Studies 1 1 (2002) 41-61
23. Rogers-Hayden T. Commissioning genetic modification: the marginalisation of dissent in the royal commission on genetic modification. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Geography, University of Waikato; 2004.