Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders' constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies

Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 67-79

  Petersen, Alan ^a   Bowman, Diana ^b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Australia; Democratisation of science; Nanotechnologies; Public engagement; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

DEMOCRATIZATION; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLICY MAKING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER;

AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84862566997     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16118014     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3354/esep00124     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave, Houndmills
2. Bickerstaff K, Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I, Mavis J (2010) Locating scientific citizenship: the institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Sci Technol Human Values 35: 474-500
3. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27: 118-132
4. Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32: 235-296
5. Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Inspiring Australia: a national strategy for engagement with the sciences. A Report to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra DIISR (Department of Innovation Industry, Science and Research) (2010) National Enabling Technologies Strategy. DIISR, Canberra
6. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group. Involve, London
7. Goven J (2006) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: scientific citizenship and the Royal Commission on genetic modification. Sci Technol Human Values 31: 565-598
8. Hård M, Jameson A (2005) Hubris and hybrids: a cultural history of technology and science. Routledge, New York, NY
9. Horst M (2007) Public expectations of gene therapy: scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Sci Technol Human Values 32: 150-171
10. Hullman A (2008) European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnologies. DG Research, European Commission, Brussels
11. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10: 1-18
12. Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead
13. Katz E, Solomon F, MeeW, Lovel R (2009) Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Underst Sci 18: 531-545
14. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Tutton R (2007) Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue. Soc Stud Sci 37: 385-411
15. Lyons K, Whelan J (2010) Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nano technologies in Australia. Nanoethics 4: 53-66
16. Market Attitude Research Services (2008) Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology: trends 2005-2008. Australian Office of Nanotechnology Rep, Canberra
17. Mascarenhas RC (1990) Reform of the public service in Australia and New Zealand. Governance 3: 75-95
18. Mejlgaard N, Stares S (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Underst Sci 19: 545-561
19. Miller G, Scrinis G (2010). The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the 'benefits versus risks' framing of nanotech innovation. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 409-445
20. Petersen A (2007) 'Biobanks' engagements: engendering trust or engineering consent? Genomics Soc Policy 3(1): 31-43
21. Petersen A, Seear K, Bowman DM (2010) Communicating with citizens about nanotechnologies: views of key stakeholders in Australia. Monash University, Melbourne
22. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16: 345-364
23. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 30: 251-290.
24. RS-RAE (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering) (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS-RAE, London.
25. von Schomberg R, Davies S (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policy. A report from the European Commission Services. European Commission, Brussels
26. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
27. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9: 211-220