What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 769-788

  Schuurbiers, Daan ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethics of science and technology; Midstream modulation; Social responsibility; Socio technical integration; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COOPERATION; ENGINEERING; ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; LABORATORY; LEARNING; POLICY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOLOGY;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; ENGINEERING; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; LABORATORIES; LEARNING; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL SCIENCES; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 83755179656     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. (2003). Public Law 108-153.
2. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-296.
3. Consoli, L. (2008). The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: A virtue-ethical approach. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(3), 234-243.
4. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
5. European Commission. (2004). Commission's communication towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. COM(2004) 338.
6. European Commission. (2007). Work programme 2007, capacities, Part 5, Science in Society. C(2007)563.
7. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1(2), 155-165.
8. Fisher, E., & Guston, D. H. (2008). STIR: Socio-technical integration research. Project Proposal for NSF Award #0849101. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
9. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic research laboratory. In Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition-IMECE 2006, November 5-10, Chicago, IL.
10. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485-496.
12. Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Shrager, J. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering at the nanoscale (pp. 63-73). Amsterdam: IOS.
13. Gorman, M. E., Werhane, P. H., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 3(3), 185-195.
14. Grin, J., & van der Graaf, H. (1996). Implementation as communicative action. An interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29(4), 291-319.
15. Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93-109.
17. Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373-385.
18. Khushf, G. (2006). An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies. In W. S. Bainbridge & M. C. Roco (Eds.), Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations: converging technologies in society (pp. 255-278). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111-119.
20. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2008). Responsible innovation-description of thematic programme. http://www. nwo. nl/files. nsf/pages/NWOA_7E2FMH_Eng/$file/MVI_description_April2008. pdf. Accessed October 5, 2011.
21. Nordmann, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 273-274.
22. Radder, H. (1998). The politics of STS. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 325-328.
23. Rappert, B. (2007). Codes of Conduct and Biological Weapons: An In-process Assessment. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 5(2), 145-154.
24. Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1222-1239.
25. Roosevelt, F. D. (1936). Letter to the engineering schools of the nation. The American Presidency Project. http://www. presidency. ucsb. edu/ws/index. php?pid=15202. Accessed October 5, 2011.
26. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2/3), 251-268.
27. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424-427.
28. Schuurbiers, D., Osseweijer, P., & Kinderlerer, J. (2009a). Implementing the Netherlands Code of Conduct for scientific practice-a case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(2), 213-231.
29. Schuurbiers, D., Sleenhoff, S., Jacobs, J. F., & Osseweijer, P. (2009b). Multidisciplinary engagement with nanoethics through education-the Nanobio-RAISE Advanced Courses as a case study and model. Nanoethics, 3(3), 197-211.
30. Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: The Guilford Press.
31. van de Poel, I. R., & van Gorp, A. C. (2006). The need for ethical reflection in engineering design: The relevance of type of design and design hierarchy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 333-360.
32. van de Poel, I. R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Editorial: ethics and engineering design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 223-236.
33. van de Poel, I. R., & Zwart, S. D. (2009). Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Science, Technology and Human Values., 23, 5-7. doi: 10. 1177/0162243909340272.
34. van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97-110.
35. Verhoog, H. (1980). Science and the social responsibility of natural scientists. Meppel: Krips Repro.
36. Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries-social science in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458-478.
37. Wynne, B. (1995). Technological assessment as reflexive social learning: Observations from the risk field. In A. Rip, Th. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 19-36). London: Pinter.
38. Wynne, B. (2007). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 491-503.
39. Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282(5395), 1813-1814.
40. Zuiderent-Jerak, T., & Jensen, C. B. (2007). Editorial Introduction: Unpacking 'Intervention'. Science as Culture, 16(3), 227-235.
41. Zwart, S. D., van de Poel, I. R., van Mil, H., & Brumsen, M. (2006). A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 663-684.