Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 607-620

  Fisher, Erik ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Engaged scholarship; Integration; Public engagement; Responsible innovation; Science and technology policy; Science and technology studies

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; POLICY; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 83855162203     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9331-x     Document Type: Editorial

References (72)

1. Baird, D. (2003). Testimony to the Senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. May 1, 2003.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 979-1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Bennett, I., & Sarewitz, D. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15(4), 309-325.
4. Bijker, W. (2003). The need for public intellectuals: A space for STS. Science, Technology ad Human Values, 28, 443-450.
5. Bjornstad, D., & Wolfe, A. (2011). Adding to the mix: Integrating ELSI into a National nanoscale science and technology center. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
6. Brown, M. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin's Press.
8. Conley, S. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. Commentary on: "Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
9. De Melo-Martin, I. (2009). Creating reflective spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(1), 39-47.
10. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 1-20.
11. Doubleday, R. (2007). Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 211-227.
12. Doubleday, R., & Visue, A. (2010). Questioning interdisciplinarty: What roles for laboratory based social science? In F. Wickson & K. L. Kjølberg (Eds.), Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies (pp. 55-84). Singapore: Pan Standford.
13. Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society, 27, 321-328.
14. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155-165.
15. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy, 33(1), 5-16.
16. Fuller, S. (2009). Book review: The handbook of science and technology studies. Isis, 100(1), 207-209.
17. Glimell, H. (2004). Grand visions and lilliput politics: Staging the exploration of the 'Endless Frontier'. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
18. Gollan, J. (2011, October 22). Lab fight raises US security issues. The New York Times.
19. Goorden, L., van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008). Nanotechnologies for tomorrow's society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Presenting futures. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society (Vol. 1, pp. 163-182). Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
20. Gorman, M. E. (2011). Doing science, technology and society in the national science foundation. Commentary on: "Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the national science foundation." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
21. Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940-941.
22. Guston, D. (2011). Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment. Commentary on: "Questioning 'participation': A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
23. Guston, D. H., & Bimber, B. (1995). Politics by the same means: Government and science in the United States. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 554-571). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24. Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25. Hackett, E., & Rhoten, D. (2011). Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
26. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
27. Horst, M. (2011). Taking our own medicine: On an experiment in science communication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
28. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299-320.
29. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Introduction. In A. Irwin, B. Wynne (Ed.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J. C., Pinch T. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
31. Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 393-418.
32. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4) (this issue).
33. Johnson, D. (2007). Ethics and technology 'in the making': An essay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 21-30.
34. Joly, P.-B., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Lost in translation? The need for 'upstream engagement' with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture, 17(3), 225-247.
35. Laurent, B. (2010). Les Politiques des Nanotechnologies: Pour un traitement démocratique d'une science émergente. Paris: Charles Léopold Mayer.
36. Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4) (this issue).
37. Lewenstein, B. V. (1992). The meaning of the "Public understanding of science" in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 45-68.
38. Lewenstein, B. V. (2011). Experimenting with engagement. Commentary on: "Taking our own medicine: On an experiment in science communication." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
39. Lippmann, W. (1932). The scholar in a troubled world. New York: Press of the Woolly Whale.
40. Macnaughten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science communication, 27(2), 268-291.
41. Marris, C., & Rose, N. (2010). Open engagement: Exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biology, 8(11), 1-3.
42. Mohr, A. (2011). Publics in the making: Mediating different methods of engagement and the publics these construct. Commentary on: "Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
43. Nordan, M. (2006). Testimony before the house committee on science. September 21 2006.
44. Nordmann, A. (2010). A forensics of wishing: Technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis Pax, 7, 5-15.
45. Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699-1707.
46. Rabinow, P., & Bennett, G. (2009). Synthetic biology: Ethical ramifications 2009. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 99-108.
47. Rayner, S. (2004). The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Industry & higher education, 18(6), 349-355.
48. Rejeski, D. (2005). Introduction. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (p. 5). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
49. Rip, A. (2009). Future of ELSA. EMBO Reports, 12, 666-670.
50. Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnology-engaging differently? NanoEthics, 1, 123-130.
51. Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
52. Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
53. Shelley-Egan, C. (2011). Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Dissertation. University of Twente.
54. Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 13-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
56. Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock 'n' roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports, 12, 114-119.
57. Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
58. Thorpe, C. (2010). Participation as post-fordist politics: Demos, new labour, and science policy. Minerva, 48, 389-411.
59. Tuma, J. (2011). Nanoethics and the breaching of boundaries: A heuristic for going from encouragement to a fuller integration of ethical, legal and social issues and science. Commentary on: "Adding to the mix: Integrating ELSI into a national nanoscale science and technology center." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
60. Tuma, J. (2012). Nanoethics in a nanolab: Ethics while you wait. Science and Engineering Ethics (in press).
61. van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. van Est, R. (2011). The broad challenge of public engagement in science. Commentary on: "Constitutional moments in governing science and technology." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
63. van Oudheusden, M. (2011). "Questioning 'Participation': A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
64. Vig, N., & Paschen, H. (Eds.). (2000). Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. New York: State University of New York Press.
65. Von Schomberg, R. (2011). On identifying plausibility and deliberative public policy. Commentary on: "Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
66. Wildson, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
67. Williams, R. (2008). Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society (Vol. 1, pp. 265-289). Dordrecht: Springer.
68. Winner, L. (2003). Testimony before the house committee on science. April 9 2003.
69. Wynne, B. (1995). The public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
70. Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Commentary on: "What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory." Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4)(this issue).
71. Yoshizawa, G. (2010). Third generation of technology assessment: Challenges for institutionalization of new generations of technology assessment. 4S Annual Meeting, Tokyo, 28 August 2010.
72. Zuiderent-Jerak, T. (2007). Editorial introduction: Unpacking 'Intervention' in science and technology studies. Science as Culture, 16(3), 227.