Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 559-573

  Kurath, Monika ^a   Gisler, Priska ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Nanotechnology; Nuclear technology; Public engagement; PUS; Science communication; Upstream engagement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EDUCATION; EUROPE; HISTORY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NUCLEAR ENERGY; POLICY; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMUNICATION; EUROPE; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70349211780     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662509104723     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Abels, G. and Bora, A. (2004) Demokratische Technikbewertung. Bielefeld: Transcript.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. H. (2008) Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration, in E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn, pp. 979-10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G., eds (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. London: Science Museum.
4. Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
5. Bell, L., Semper, R., Martin, P., Alpert, C. L. and Rockwell, T. (2006) NISE Net: Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network. Boston: Science Museum.
6. Bora, A. and Hausendorf, H. (2006) Participatory Science Governance Revisited: Normative Expectations versus Empirical Evidence, Science and Public Policy 33(7): 478-88.
7. Callon, M., Dianoux, L., Fourniau, J., Gilbert, C., Hermitte, M.-A., Joly, P.-B., Joseph, C., Kaufmann, A., Larrère, R., Neubauer, C. and Schaer, R. (2005)Democratie locale et maitrise sociale des nanotechnologies: Le publics grenoblois peuvent-ils participer aux choix scientifiques et techniques? Grenoble: Rapport de la Mission pour la Métro.
8. Cerutti, H. (2006) Nano! Nanu? Informationsbroschüre publifocus "Nanotechnologien und ihre Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt." Bern: TA Swiss.
9. De Chadarevian, S. (2002) Designs for Life: Molecular Biology after World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. De Chadarevian, S. (2005) Asilomar: ein Moratorium und was daraus geworden ist, Gegenworte-Hefte für den Disput über Wissen 16 (Herbst): 74-7.
11. Drexler, E. K. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.
12. Durant, J., Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G., eds (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. London: Science Museum.
13. Durant, J., Evans, G. A. and Thomas, G. P. (1989) The Public Understanding of Science, Nature 340 (6 July): 11-14.
14. Felt, U., Nowotny, H. and Taschwer, K. (1995) Wissenschaftsforschung: Eine Einführung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
15. Flagg, B. (2005) Nanotechnology and the Public: Part I of Front-end Analysis in Support of Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, URL (consulted February 2009): http://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files_static/evaluation/NISEFrtEndPart1Text.pdf
16. Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M., eds. (2001) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
17. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2005) Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States, Public Understanding of Science 14(1): 81-90.
18. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R. and Doubleday, R. (2007) Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
19. Gieryn, T. (1995) Boundaries of Science, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. Gottweis, H. (1998) Governing Molecules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Greenberg, D. (2001) Science, Money and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York and London: Plenum Trade.
23. Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2004)Bio-to-nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison. Lancaster: Demos/Lancaster University.
24. Guston, D. H. (1999) Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy Science, Technology and Human Values 24(4): 451-82.
25. Hagendijk, R. P. (2004) The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds, Minerva 42: 41-59.
26. Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006) Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe, Minerva 44: 167-84.
27. Hagendijk, R. P. and Kallerud, E. (2003) Changing Conceptions and Practices of Governance in Science and Technology in Europe: A Framework for Analysis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
28. Hagendijk, R. P. and Terpstra, A. (2004) Technology, Risk and Democracy: The Dutch Nuclear Energy Debate (1981-1984). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
29. Hsi, S. (2006) Views of the Science Community on Communicating to the Public about Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, URL (consulted February 2009): http://www.nisenet.org/files_static/evaluation/NISENet_Study_Hsi.pdf/
30. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences, Public Understanding of Science 10: 1-18.
31. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33. Jones, R. (2008) Fearing the Fear of Nanotechnology, Nature (News) 9 December.
34. Joss, S. (2000) Die Konsensukonferenz in Theorie und Anwendung. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung.
35. Joss, S. and Durant, J., eds (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
36. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wilsdon, J. (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.
37. Kenney, M. (1986) Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
38. Kleinman, D. and Maria, P. (2005) Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
39. Kriesi, H. (1995) New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
40. Krimsky, S. (1982) Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Kupper, P. (2003a) Atomenergie und gespaltene Gesellschaft. Die Geschichte des gescheiterten Projektes Kernkraftwerk Kaiseraugst. Zürich: Chronos.
42. Kupper, P. (2003b) Sonderfall Atomenergie: Die bundesstaatliche Atompolitik 1945-1970, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 53: 87-93.
43. Lewenstein, B. V. (1992) The Meaning of 'Public Understanding of Science' in the United States after World War II, Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 45-68.
44. Lewenstein, B. V. (1995) Science and the Media, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 343-60. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45. Limbach, L. K., Wick, P., Manser, P., Grass, R. N., Bruinink, A. and Stark, W. J. (2007) Exposure of Engineered Nanoparticles to Human Lung Epithelial Cells: Influence of Chemical Composition and Catalytic Activity on Oxidative Stress, Environmental Science and Technology 41: 4158-63.
46. Linse, S., Cabaleiro-Lago, C., Xue, W.-F., Lynch, I., Lindman, S., Thulin, E., Radford, S. E. and Dawson, K. A. (2007) Nucleation of Protein Fibrillation by Nanoparticles, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(21): 8691-6.
47. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B. (2005) Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences, Science Communications 21(2): 1-24.
48. Meinolf, D. and von Grote, C., eds (2000) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
49. Miller, S. (2001) Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads, Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115-20.
50. Nature (2004) Going Public, Nature 431(7011): 883.
51. Nelkin, D. (1976) Changing Images of Science: New Pressures on Old Stereotypes, Newsletter of the Program on Public Conceptions of Science 14 (January): 21-31.
52. Nelkin, D. (1987 [revised edn 1995]) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman and Company.
53. Nowotny, H. (1993) Socially Distributed Knowledge: Five Spaces for Science to Meet the Public, Public Understanding of Science 2(4): 307-19.
54. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity.
55. Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E. and Oberdörster, J. (2005) Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles, Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7): 823-39.
56. Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
57. Poland, C. A., Duffin, R. D., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A. H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. and Donaldson, K. (2008) Carbon Nanotubes Introduced into the Abdominal Cavity of Mice Show Asbestos-like Pathogenicity in a Pilot Study, Nature Nanotechnology 3: 423-8 (doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.111).
58. Ratkau, J. (1988) Hiroshima und Asilomar: Die Inszenierung des Diskurses über die Gentechnik vor dem Hintergrund der Kernenergie-Kontroverse, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 14: 329-63.
59. Rey, L. (2006) Nanotechnologien in der Schweiz: Herausforderungen erkannt: Bericht zum Dialogverfahren publifocus "Nanotechnologien und ihre Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt." Bern: Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TA Swiss.
60. Rip, A., Misa, T. J. and Schot, J., eds (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
61. Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A. and Pidgeon, N. (2007) Engaging with Nanotechnologies: Engaging Differently?, NanoEthics 1: 123-30.
62. Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
63. RS&RAE (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.
64. Rucht, D. (1994) Modernisierung und neue soziale Bewegungen in Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA im Vergleich. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
65. Shils, E. (1974) Public Understanding of Science, Minerva 12(2): 153-8.
66. Singh, J. (2007) Polluted Waters: The UK Nanojury as Upstream Public Engagement, URL (consulted February 2009): http://www.nanojury.org.uk/pdfs/polluted_waters.pdf/
67. Stilgoe, J. (2007) Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London: Demos.
68. Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes, Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55-74.
69. Taniguchi, N. (1974) On the Basic Concept of 'Nano-Technology,' Bulletin of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering 18-23.
70. Trachtman, L. E. (1981) The Public Understanding of Science Effort: A Critique, Science, Technology and Human Values 6(36): 10-15.
71. Türk, V., Kaiser, C., Liedtke, C., Knowles, H., Murray, V., Schaller, S., Wallbaum, H., Kastenholz, H. and Köhler, A. R. (2006) Nanologue: Opinions on the Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnologies: Results from a Consultation with Representatives from Research, Business and Civil Society, URL (consulted February 2009): http://www.nanologue.net/custom/user/Downloads/NanologueWP34FinalPublic.pdf/
72. Turney, J. (1996) Public Understanding of Sciences, Lancet 347: 1087-90.
73. Weiner, C. (2001) Drawing the Line in Genetic Engineering: Self-Regulation and Public Participation, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44(2): 208-20.
74. Whitley, R. (1985) Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularisation as a Relation between Scientific Fields and their Publics, in T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds) Expository Science: Form and Functions of Popularisation, pp. 3-28. Dordrecht and Boston, MA: Reidel.
75. Wilsdon, J. (2005) Small Talk: New Ways of Democratising Science and Technology URL (consulted February 2009): http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-accountability/science_2871.jsp/
76. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
77. Wright, S. (1994) Molecular Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78. Wynne, B. (1991) Knowledges in Context, Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1): 111-21.
79. Wynne, B. (1995) Public Understanding of Science, in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
80. Wynne, B. (1996) May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44-83. London: SAGE.
81. Wynne, B. (2001) Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMO's, Science as Culture 10(4): 445-81.
82. Ziman, J. (1992) Not Knowing, Needing to Know, and Wanting to Know, in B. V. Lewenstein (ed.) When Science Meets the Public, pp. 13-20. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
83. Zimmer, R., Domasch, S., Scholl, G., Zschiesche, M., Petschow, U., Hertel, R.F. and Böl, G.-F. (2007) Nanotechnologien im öffentlichen Diskurs: Deutsche Verbraucherkonferenz mit Votum, Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 3(16): 98-101.