Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue

Technology in Society

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 173-182

  Selin, Cynthia ^a   Hudson, Rebecca ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Emerging technologies; Human enhancement; NanoFutures; Nanotechnology; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

DIVERSE COMMUNITY; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; HUMAN ENHANCEMENT; MULTI-MEDIA; NANOFUTURES; NEW MEDIA; OPEN-SOURCE; PROJECT DESIGNS; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; SCENARIO PLANNING; SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH; STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE; WEB 2.0;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; PUBLIC RISKS; VIRTUAL REALITY; WORLD WIDE WEB;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TRADE-OFF;

EID: 77956909239     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Guston D.H. Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values 1999, 24(4):451-482.
2. Hamlett P.W. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values 2003, 28(1):112-140.
3. Guston D.H., Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 2002, 24(1-2):93-109.
4. Wynne B. Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide 1996, 44-83. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, B. Wynne (Eds.).
5. Irwin A., Michael M. Science, social theory and public knowledge 2003, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
6. Lee C., Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):240-267.
7. Macoubrie J. Informed public perception on nanotechnology and trust in government, project on emerging nanotechnologies 2005, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, New York.
8. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 2000, 25(1):3-29.
9. Irwin A. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 2006, 36(2):299-320.
10. Currall S.C., King E.B., Lane N., Madera J., Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?. Nature Nanotechnology 2006, 1:153-155.
11. O'Reilly T. The architecture of participation June 2004 Available from:, Retrieved July, 2007. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/articles/architecture_of_participation.html.
12. Collingridge D. The social control of technology 1980, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
13. Evans R.J., Plows A. Listening without prejudice: re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science 2007, 37(6):827-854.
14. Macnaghten P., Kearnes M.B., Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):268-291.
15. Selin C. Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Future 2006, 38(1):1-14.
16. de Geus A., Senge P.M. The living company: habits for survival in a turbulent business environment 2002, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. 1st ed.
17. Van der Heijden K. Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation 2005, Wiley & Sons. 2nd ed.
18. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D.H. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. The handbook of science and technology studies 2007, 979-1000. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 3rd ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (Eds.).
19. Bennett I. Developing plausible nano-enabled products. Yearbook for nanotechnology in society: presenting nanotechnological futures 2008, 149-155. Springer, New York. E. Fisher, C. Selin, J. Wetmore (Eds.).
20. Selin C. Volatile visions: transactions in anticipatory knowledge. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: Samfundsliteratu; 2006.
21. Selin C. Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, forthcoming.
22. Nordmann A. If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 2007, 1:31-46.
23. Funtowitz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy 1990, Springer, New York.
24. Collins H.M., Evans R.J. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Sciences 2002, 32(2):235-296.
25. Herring S.C., Kouper I., Paolillo J.C., Scheidt L.A., Tyworth M., Welsch P., et al. Conversations in the blogosphere: an analysis ″ from the bottom up″ 2005, Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
26. Nakajima S, Tatemura J, Hino Y, Hara Y, Tanaka K. Discovering important bloggers based on analyzing blog threads. 14th International World Wide Web Conference, Chiba, Japan; 2005.
27. de Moor A., Efimova L. An argumentation analysis of Weblog conversations. Paper presented at the 9th International working conference on the language-action perspective on communication modelling 2004, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
28. Dooley K., Corman S., Ballard D. Centering resonance analysis: a superior data mining algorithm for textual data streams 2004, Report No. STTR 001-1.
29. Keen A. The cult of the amateur: how today's Internet is killing our culture. Broadway Business 2007, 17.
30. Hamlett P., Cobb M.D., Guston D.H. National citizens' technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement 2008, No. CNS-ASU Report #R08-0002.
31. McGonigal J. Engagement economy: the future of massively scaled collaboration and participation 2008, Institute for the Future, Palo Alto, CA.