Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 723-737

  Selin, Cynthia ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Deliberation; Foresight; Plausibility; Social implications of nanotechnology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DEMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLITICAL SYSTEM; RESEARCH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

ARIZONA; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DEMOCRACY; GOALS; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RESEARCH; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIAL VALUES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 83855162823     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99, 116-131.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. (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 (3rd ed., pp. 979-1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of futures studies: Human science for a new era. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers.
4. Bennett, I. (2008). Developing plausible nano-enabled products. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Yearbook for nanotechnology in society (pp. 149-155). Berlin: Springer.
5. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Burlington VT: Ashgate.
6. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin's Press.
7. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Contradictory intent? U. S. federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy, 33(1), 5-16.
8. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137-152). New York: Columbia University Press.
10. Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9), 867-885.
11. Grupp, H., & Linstone, H. A. (1999). National technology foresight activities around the globe: Resurrection and new paradigms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60, 85-94.
12. Guston, D. H. (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 Ethics17, this issue.
13. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Culture, 24, 93-109.
14. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2007). The new handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). Berlin: MIT Press.
15. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge.
16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Macnaughten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 272, 268-291.
18. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
19. Michael, M. (2000). Futures of the present: From performativity to prehension. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
20. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2007). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 715-728.
21. Public Law 108-153, 117 STAT. 1923. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.
22. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1996). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
23. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 196-220.
24. Selin, C. (2008). Sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time. Sociologic Compass, 2(60), 1875-1895.
25. Selin, C., & Hudson, R. (2010). Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue. Technology in Society, 32(3), 173-182.
26. Tsoukas, H., & Sheperd, J. (Eds.). (2004). Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy. Malden MA: Blackwell.
27. van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley.
28. van Notten, P., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), 423-443.
29. Wack, P. (1984). Scenarios: The gentle art of re-perceiving: A thing or two learned while developing planning scenarios for royal dutch/shell. Harvard Business School Working Paper, pp. 1-77.
30. Williams, R. (2006). Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Science and Culture, 4, 327-348.