Governance of nanotechnology in the Netherlands, informing and engaging in different social spheres

Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 6-26

  Van Est, Rinie ^a,b   Walhout, Bart ^c   Rerimassie, Virgil ^a   Stemerding, Dirk ^a   Hanssen, Lucien ^d  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c NanoNextNL a micro and nanotechnology consortium   (Netherlands)

^d DEINING Societal Communication Governance   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Governance of Science and Technology; Nanotechnology; Public engagement; Social spheres

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871003102     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14490706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Callon M, Laredo P, Rabehariso V, Gonard T & Leray T 1992, 'The Management and Evaluation of Technological Programs and the Dynamics of Techno-Economic Networks: The Case of the AFME', Research Policy 21, pp.215-236.
2. Chilvers J 2010, Sustainable Participation? Mapping Out and Reflecting on the Field of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology, Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre University of East Anglia, Harwell
3. COGEM (The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification) 2010, Commissie Biotechnologie bij Dieren (CBD), Gezondheidsraad Trendanalyse Biotechnologie 2009, Mondiaal Momentum, COGEM, Bilthoven
4. COGEM 2008, Biological Machines? COGEM, Bilthoven
5. COGEM 2006, Synthetische Biologie: Een Onderzoeksveld met Voortschrijdende Gevolgen, COGEM, Bilthoven
6. CSDN (Commission Societal Dialogue Nanotechnology) 2011, Verantwoord Verder met Nanotechnologie. Bevindingen maart 2009 - januari 2011 (in Dutch), CSDN, Amsterdam. Available at: www.nanopodium.nl
7. CSDN 2010, Het Giga Van Nano: Rapport 1-meting van de publieke opinie over nanotechnologie (in Dutch). Commission Societal Dialogue Nanotechnology, Amsterdam. Available at: www.nanopodium.nl
8. Decker M & Ladikas M (eds) 2004, Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment - Methods and Impacts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
9. De Jong WH, Roszek B & Geertsma RE 2005, Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: Possible Risks for Human Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Document No: 265001002
10. De Vriend H 2006, Constructing Life: Early Social Reflections on the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology, Rathenau Institute, The Hague
11. Durant J 1999, 'Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science', Science and Public Policy, 26, pp.313-319.
12. ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) 2003, The Big Down: From Genomes to Atoms, ETC Group, Winnipeg
13. Gavelin K, Wilson R & Doubleday R 2007, Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group, Involve, London
14. Gezondheidsraad (The Health Council of the Netherlands) 2006, Health Significance of Nanotechnologies, Gezondheidsraad, The Hague. Publication No: 2006/06E.
15. Gezondheidsraad, Advisory Council on Health Research (RGO) & the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) 2008, Synthetische Biologie: Kansen Creëren, Gezondheidsraad, The Hague
16. Guston D & Sarewitz D 2002, 'Real-Time Technology Assessment', Technology in Society, 24, 93-109
17. Gutteling J, Hanssen L, Van der Veer N & Seydel E 2006, 'Trust in Governance and the Acceptance of GM Food in the Netherlands', Public Understanding of Science, 15, 1, pp.103-112.
18. Hanssen L 2009, Design Requirements for Successful Public Participation in Communication and Governance of Science and Technology, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede
19. Hanssen L, Langeslag M, Vos T & Walhout B 2011, Een reflectieve analyse van de maatschappelijke dialoog nanotechnologie (in Dutch). Rathenau Institute, The Hague.
20. Hanssen L, Walhout B & Van Est R 2008, Ten Lessons for a Nanodialogue: The Dutch Debate about Nanotechnology Thus Far, Rathenau Institute, The Hague, available at: www.rathenau.nl
21. Hennen L 2002, 'Impacts of Participatory Technology Assessment on its Social Environment', in Joss S & Bellucci S (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, Centre for the Study of Democracy, London, pp.257-275.
22. House of Lords Select Committee on Science, Technology 2000, Science in Society. The Stationery Office, London.
23. Irwin A 2006, 'The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific Governance', Social Studies of Science, 36, 2, pp.299-320.
24. Irwin A 2001, 'Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences', Public Understanding of Science, 10, pp.1-18.
25. Jamison A, Eyerman R, Cramer J & Læssøe J 1990, The Making of the New Environmental Consciousness: A Comparative Study of the Environmental Movements in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
26. Joss S & Bellucci S (eds.) 2002, Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, Centre for the Study of Democracy, London.
27. Koeman JH, Dekker C, Nolte RJM, Reinhoudt DN, Rip A & Robillard GT 2004, Hoe groot kan klein zijn? Enkele kanttekeningen bij onderzoek op nanometerschaal en mogelijke gevolgen van nanotechnologie, KNAW, Werkgroep Nanotechnologie, Den Haag
28. Laurent B 2011, 'Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics', Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 4, 649-666.
29. Lyall C, Papaioannou T & Smith J (eds) 2009, The Limits to Governance: The Challenge of Policy-Making for the Life Sciences, Ashgate, Farnham
30. Miller S 2001, 'Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads', Public Understanding of Science, 10, pp.115-120.
31. National Human Genome Research Institute 2008, About ELSI: About the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the (ELSI) Program. Available from http://www.genome.gov/10001754
32. PAGANINI Project 2007, Summary Report of the PAGANINI Project: Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation: The New Politics of Life, Department of Political Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna
33. Parliamentary Documents 2011, 29 338-110, 112, retrieved from https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl, accessed February 1, 2012
34. https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl, accessed February 1, 2012
35. Parliamentary Documents 2005, 29 338-42, retrieved from https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl, accessed February 1, 2012
36. Rathenau Instituut 2007, Verslag Congres Justitie en Cognitie - De groeiende kennis van het brein en de betekenis voor de rechtspraktijk. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.
37. Rathenau Instituut, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations & Ministry of Justice 2009, Kenniskamer Human Enhancement: Feiten, fabels en ficties. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.
38. Rathenau Instituut, Ministry of Security and Justice 2011, Kenniskamer Intelligente Robots, Feiten, fabels en ficties. Ministry of Security and Justice, The Hague.
39. Renn O 2005, Risk Governance - Towards an Integrative Approach, IRGC White Paper 1. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Geneva.
40. Rijksoverheid 2009, Instellingsbesluit Commissie: Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie. Staatscourant nr 61, The Hague, 30 maart 2009
41. Rijksoverheid 2008, Action Plan Nanotechnology, Dutch Government: The Hague. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl; accessed February 1, 2012
42. Rijksoverheid 2006, Cabinet View: From Small to Great. Dutch Government: The Hague. Available at www.rijksoverheid.nl; accessed February 1, 2012
43. Rip A 2010, 'NanoNed Flagship Technology Assessment', in Guston DH (ed) Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.513-515. SAGE Reference Online, accessed February 1, 2012.
44. Rip A 2009, 'An Agenda for the Future of Nanotechnology', Public Service Review, 104-105
45. Roszek B, de Jong WH & Geertsma RE 2005, Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: State-of-the-Art in Materials and Devices, RIVM, Bilthoven, Article No: 265001001
46. RS-RAE (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering) 2004, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. The Royal Society, London.
47. Schot J & Rip A 1997, 'The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment', Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54, pp.251-268.
48. Slocum N 2003, Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner's Manual. King Baudouin Foundation and Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment, Brussels.
49. SER (Social Economic Council) 2009, Veilig omgaan met nanodeeltjes op de werkplek. SER, The Hague, Advice 2009/01
50. Stirling A 2008, "Opening Up' and 'Closing Down': Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology', Science, Technology and Human Values 33, 262-294
51. Strategieberaad Rijksbreed 2010, Rijksbrede Kennisagenda - Fase 1: Trends & Ontwikkelingen. Strategieberaad Rijksbreed, Den Haag. Available (in Dutch) at: http://www.go.to/rijksbredekennisagenda
52. Swierstra T, Boenink M, Walhout B & Van Est R (eds) 2009, Leven als bouwpakket. Klement, Zoetermeer.
53. Swiss Re 2004, Nanotechnology: Small Matter, Many Unknowns. Swiss Re, Zurich.
54. Teeuw W & Vedder A (eds) 2007, Impact of Converging Technologies on Future Security Applications. Telematica Instituut, Enschede.
55. Te Kulve H 2010, 'Emerging Technologies and Waiting Games: Institutional Entrepreneurship in Embedding Nanotechnologies in the Food Packaging Sector', Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 6, 1, pp.8-31.
56. Te Kulve H & Rip A 2011, 'Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-Engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies', Science and Engineering Ethics 17, 4, 699-714
57. Ten Wolde A 1998, Nanotechnology - Towards a Molecular Construction Kit, STT Netherlands Study Centre for Technology Trends, STT 60, The Hague
58. Van Eijndhoven J 1997, 'Technology Assessment: Product or Process?' Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 269-286
59. Van Est R 2011a, 'The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science - Commentary on 'Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology'. In: Bird SJ & Fisher E (eds) 'Science and Technology in the Making: Observation and Engagement' Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics Special Issue, vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 639-648.
60. Van Est R 2011b, 'Keeping the Dream Alive: What ELSI-Research Might Learn from Parliamentary Technology Assessment'. In: Cozzens S & Wetmore J (eds.) Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, 1, Volume 2, Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development, Part 5. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, pp. 409-421.
61. Van Est R & Brom F 2012, 'Technology Assessment: Analytic and Democratic Practice'. In: Chadwick R (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics: Second Edition, Volume 4. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 306-320.
62. Van Est R & Van Keulen I 2004, '"Small Technology - Big Consequences": Building up the Dutch Debate on Nanotechnology from the Bottom'. Technikfolgenabschätzung -Theorie und Praxis vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 72-79.
63. Van Est R & Walhout B 2007, Verslaglegging Ronde Tafelbijeenkomst - NGOs Engaging Nanotechnology. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag.
64. Van Est R & Walhout B 2010, 'Waiting for Nano - Very Actively: A Long-Term View on the Role of the Rathenau Institute in Stimulating the Dutch Debate on Nanotechnology', Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis vol. 2, pp. 67-74.
65. Van Est R, Malsch NH, & Rip A 2004, Om het kleine te waarderen - Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag.
66. Van Est R, Van Eijndhoven J, Aarts W & Loeber A 2002, 'The Netherlands: Seeking to Involve Wider Public in Technology Assessment', in Joss S & Bellucci S (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, London, pp.108-125.
67. VWA (Voedsel en Warenautoriteit) 2007, Nanodeeltjes in consumentenproducten, Voedsel en Warenautoriteit, Groningen
68. Wilsdon J & Willis R 2004, See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Demos, London.
69. Wynne B 1995, 'The Public Understanding of Science', in Jasanoff S, Markle G, Petersen JC & Pinch T (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.380-392.