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

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 715-721

  Conley, Shannon N ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Constructive technology assessment; Engagement; Genetics; Integration

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD PACKAGING; HUMAN; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLICY; PRODUCTIVITY; SCIENCE;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; EFFICIENCY; FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD PACKAGING; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE;

EID: 83855165686     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9323-x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science, technology studies (Third Edition ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 656-674.
3. 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.
4. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155.
5. Fisher, E., & Miller, C. A. (2009). Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369-381). Palo Alto, CA: Academica Press.
6. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485-496.
7. Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940.
8. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).
9. Rip, A., & te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures (pp. 49-70). Berlin: Springer.
10. 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 (this issue).
11. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(23), 251-268.
12. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424.
13. STIR: SocioTechnical Integration Research. http://cns. asu. edu/stir/.
14. Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (this issue).