Discussing Nascent Technologies: Citizens Confront Nanotechnology in Food

East Asian Science, Technology and Society

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 483-501

  Yamaguchi, Tomiko ^a  

^a INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Consensus conference; Japan; Nanotechnology in food; Social interaction; Upstream engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651324773     PISSN: 18752160     EISSN: 18752152     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12280-010-9153-y     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Francis Pinter.
3. David, Kenneth H., & Thompson, Paul B. (2008). What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.
4. Deng, C.-Y., & Chia-Ling, Wu. (2010). An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan. Social Science and Medicine, 6, 896-903.
5. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: The Involve Foundation.
6. Goven, Joanna (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science. pp. 423-40.
7. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 4, 93-109.
8. Hindmarsh, Richard, & Du Plessis, Rosemary. (2008). GMO regulation and civic participation at the "edge of the world": The case of Australia and New Zealand. New Genetics and Society, 3, 181-199.
9. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & O'Riordan, T. (2006). On evaluating the GM Nation? Public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genetics and Society, 25(3), 265-288.
10. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., & Poortinga, W. (2007). The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement. London: Routledge.
11. Joly, P.-B., & Kaufmann, A. (2008). Lost in translation? The need for "upstream engagement" with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture, 3, 225-247.
12. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
13. Juraku, K., Suzuki, T., & Sakura, O. (2007). Social decision-making processes in local contexts: an STS case study on nuclear power plant siting in Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1, 53-75.
14. Kagakugijyutsu Shinkoukikou Kenkyukaihatsu Senryaku Center (chines source) (Center for Research and Development Strategy, Japan Science and Technology Agency) (2007). (chines source)·(chines source) (Working group on food nanotechnology: applying nano-technology and nano-materials to food industries). Tokyo: Center for Research and Development Strategy. Available at: http://crds. jst. go. jp/output/pdf/07wr17f. pdf. Accessed 3 September 2010.
15. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 3, 385-411.
16. Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology and democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
17. Kleinman, D. L., & Powell, M. (2005). Report of the Madison area citizen consensus conference on nanotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
18. Kleinmann, D. L., Powell, M., Grice, J., Adrian, J., & Lobes, C. (2007). A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: the practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 2, 154-169.
19. Kobayashi, Tadashi (chines source) (2004). Darega kagakugijyutsu nitsuite kangaerunoka: konsensasukaigi toiu jikken (chines source): (chines source) (Who has a say in science and technology? A social experiment called "consensus conference"). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku shuppankai.
20. Leroux, T., Hirtle, M., & Fortin, L.-N. (1998). An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 4, 445-481.
21. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 2, 268-291.
22. Mikami, Naoyuki, Shigeo Sugiyama, Yuichiro Takahashi, Tomiko Yamaguchi, & Masashi Tachikawa (chines source), (chines source), (chines source), (chines source), (chines source) (2009). Jouryu deno sanka ni consensasu kaigi wa tsukaeruka (chines source) (Is a consensus conference suitable for "upstream engagement"?). Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 6, 34-49.
23. Nogyo Shokuhin Sangyogijyutsu Sogo Kenkyu Kikou Shokuhin Sougou Kenkyujyo (chines source)·(chines source) (National Food Research Institute) (2010). Nosuisho Nanotekunoroji Purojiekuto: shokuhinsozai no nanosukeru kako oyobi hyokagijyutsu no kaihatsu (chines source): (chines source) (MAFF nanotechnology project: development methods for processing food materials at nano-scale and its evaluation techniques). Available at: http://www. nfri. affrc. go. jp/research/seikatenji/2007/pdf/P20. pdf. Accessed 30 September 2010.
24. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-98.
25. Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnologies-engaging differently? NanoEthics, 2, 123-130.
26. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1, 3-29.
27. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29, 88-121.
28. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
29. Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford.
30. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 2, 459-466.
31. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 2, 283-290.
32. Stirling, A. (2008). "Opening up" and "closing down": power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 2, 262-294.
33. Toumey, C. (2007). Rules of engagement. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 386-387.
34. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.