Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay Ethics of Nanotechnology

NanoEthics

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 141-151

  Davies, Sarah R ^a   Macnaghten, Phil ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Control; Lay ethics; Nanotechnology; Narrative; Public perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956473626     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Babbage F (2004) Augusto Boal. Routledge, London.
2. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6): 561-570.
3. Banks S, Scully JL, Shakespeare T (2006) Ordinary ethics: lay people's deliberations on social sex selection. New Genet Soc 25(3): 289-303.
4. Bensaude-Vincent B (2004) Two cultures of nanotechnology? Hyle 10(2): 65-82.
5. BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: views of the general public. Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the Nanotechnology study. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group, London.
6. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9(2): 183-189.
7. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4): 395-405.
8. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1(3): 153-155.
9. Dupuy J-P (2000) The mechanization of the mind: on the origins of cognitive science. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
10. European Commission (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.
11. Felt U, Wynne B (Eds) (2007) Science and governance: taking european knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, Brussels.
12. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4, no. 1 (April 1): 27-52. doi: 10. 1007/s11569-009-0081-z.
13. Feynman R (1960) There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. Engineering and Science.
14. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) From our readers: public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3(8): 496.
15. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14(1): 81-90.
16. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London.
17. Heller A (2006) European master-narratives about freedom. In: Delanty G (ed) Handbook of European social theory. Routledge, London, pp 257-265.
18. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'New' scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2): 299-320.
19. Irwin A, Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. Kearnes MB (2008) Informationalising matter: systems understandings of the nanoscale. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2(1): 99-111.
21. Kearnes MB, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London.
22. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1(2): 89-104.
23. Law J (2004) After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, Abingdon.
24. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies-Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2): 240-267.
25. Lyotard J-F (1979) The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
26. Macnaghten P (2009) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plann A. 41, Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1068/a41349.
27. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington.
28. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2): 221-241.
29. Nerlich B, Clarke DD, Ulph F (2007) Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: how young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health Risk & Society 9(2): 159-171.
30. Nordmann A (2005) Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techne 8(3): 3-23.
31. Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars, Washington.
32. Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., Washington.
33. Responsible Nano Code (2008) Information on the responsible nano code initiative. Responsible Futures, London.
34. Sandel MJ (2004) The case against perfection: what's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. The Atlantic Online, 2004.
35. Sandel MJ (2007) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Harvard University Press, London.
36. Sandler R (2009) Nanotechnology: the social and ethical issues. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington.
37. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3): 369-379.
38. Scully JL, Banks S, Shakespeare TW (2006) Chance, choice and control: lay debate on prenatal social sex selection. Soc Sci Med 63(1): 21-31.
39. Scully JL, Shakespeare T, Banks S (2006) Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection. Sociol Health Illn 28(6): 749-767.
40. Song R (2002) Human genetics: fabricating the future. Darton, Longman and Todd, London.
41. Strassnig M (2008) Ethics is like a book that one reads when one has time: exploring lay 'ethical' knowledge in a public engagement setting. Dissertation: University of Vienna.
42. Toumey C (2005) Apostolic succession. Sci Eng 68(1& 2): 16-23.
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(3): 211-220.