The potential of national public engagement exercises: Evaluating the case of the recent dutch societal dialogue on nanotechnology

Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 27-44

  Krabbenborg, Lotte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Elsa; Nanotechnology; National societal dialogues; The netherlands; Upstream public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871027233     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14490706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. CIEMD (Commissie Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie) 2011, Commissie Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie: Verantwoord verder met nanotechnologie. Bevindingen maart 2009-januari 2011.
2. CIEMD 2009, Commissie Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie: Naar een Maatschappelijke Agenda over Nanotechnologie
3. Commission of the European Communities 2008, Commission Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research, Brussels. Dewey J 1927, Public and its Problems, Swallow Press Books, Ohio.
4. Doridot F 2010, Contributions and Limits of the French National Public Debate on Nanotechnology, Second Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies. Available at: http://www.egais-project.eu/ sites/default/files/documents/Darmstadt_2010_EGAIS_Doridot.pdf
5. Doubleday R 2007, 'Risk, Public Engagement and Reflexivity: Alternative Framings of the Public Dimensions of Nanotechnology", Health, Risk & Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 211.
6. European Commission Directorate General (DG) for Research 2004, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg
7. European Commission Directorate-General (DG) for Research 2008, Public Engagement in Science, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg
8. Hanssen L 2009, From Transmission towards Transaction, Design Requirements for Successful Public Participation in Communication and Governance of Science and Technology, University of Twente
9. Health Council of The Netherlands 2006, Health Significance of Nanotechnologies, Health Council of The Netherlands, The Hague
10. Joly PB & Kaufmann A 2008, 'Lost in Translation? The Need for 'Upstream Engagement' with Nanotechnology on Trial', Science as Culture, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 225-247.
11. Katz E. Solomon F, Mee W & Lovel R 2009, 'Evolving Scientific Research Governance in Australia: A Case Study of Engaging Interested Publics in Nanotechnology Research', Public Understanding of Science, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 531-545.
12. Krabbenborg L 2011, 'Zelf darmkanker vaststellen met een pilletje: een goed idee?', Radbode, vol. 36, no 10, pp 15
13. Krabbenborg L & van der Windt HJ 2011, 'Veranderende rollen, verantwoordelijkheden en waarden rondompoint-of-care diagnostiek', Tijdschrift voor Klinische Chemie en Lab geneeskunde, vol. 36, pp. 44-47.
14. Kulve HT 2006, 'Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands', Science as Culture, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 367-382.
15. Lindblom CE 1990, Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society, Yale University Press, New Haven
16. Malsch I 2011, Onwards Responsibly with Nanotechnology: Interview with prof.dr. Peter Nijkamp, President of Committee Societal Dialogue Nanotechnology, Netherlands ObservatoryNano, Available at: http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/filesystem/files/ObservatoryNanointerviewPeterNijkamp22032011.pdf
17. Ministerial Implementation Resolution 2009, Instellingsbesluit Commissie maatschappelijke dialoog nanotechnologie, Staatscourant, The Hague
18. Parandian A 2012, Constructive TA of Newly Emerging Technologies. Stimulating Learning by Anticipation through Bridging Events, Technical University of Delft.
19. Parliamentary Documents 2011, Progress Report Nanotechnology NO 29 338 - 110, 112, The Hague
20. Parliamentary Documents 2008, Action Plan for Nanotechnology, The Hague
21. Parliamentary Documents 2006, Vision Document: Nanotechnologieen: Van Klein naar groots, The Hague
22. Pidgeon N & Rogers-Hayden T 2007, 'Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or 'Upstream Engagement'?' Health, Risk & Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 191.
23. Rip A 2006, 'Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists", Science as Culture, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 349.
24. Rip A & Joly PB 2004, 'Multi-Actor Spaces and the Governance of Science and Innovation in the ERA', PRIME-TN, Workpackage 2
25. Rip A & Talma AS 1998, 'Antagonistic Patterns and New Technologies' in C Disco & B van der Meulen (eds),Getting New Technologies Together, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 299-323.
26. Robinson DKR 2010, Constructive Technology Assessment of Newly Emerging Nanotechnologies, Iskamp Drukkers BV, Enschede
27. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) 2004, How Big Can Small Actually Be? Some Remarks on Research at the Nanometre Scale and the Potential Consequences of Nanotechnology, Amsterdam
28. Stirling A 2007, 'Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate. Talking Point on the Precautionary Principle', Embo Reports, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 309-315.
29. StØ E, Scholl G, Jegou F & Strandbakken P 2010, 'The Future of Deliberative Processes on Nanotechnology' in R. Vom Schomberg & S. Davies (eds) Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 53-80.
30. Swierstra T & Rip A 2007, 'Nano-Ethics as NEST-Ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology', Nanoethics, vol. 1, pp. 3-20.
31. Swierstra T & Te Molder H 2012, 'Risk and Soft Impacts' in S Roeser, R Hillerbrand, P Sandin & M Peterson (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory, Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Dordrecht.
32. Van Est R, Malsch I & Rip A 2004, Om het kleine te waarderen...Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten, Rathenau Institute, The Hague
33. Van Est R, Van Eijndhoven J, Aarts W & Loeber A 2002, 'The Netherlands: Seeking to Involve Wider Public in Technology Assessment' in S Joss & S Bellucci (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives, Centre for the Study of Democracy, London
34. Vickerman R 2007, 'Can Business Strategy Influence Policy Cycles?' in R Macário, JM Viegas & DA Hensher (eds) Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 215.
35. Wilsdon J & Willis R 2004, See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos, London
36. Wynne B 2006, 'Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science - Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?' Community Genetics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 211-220.
37. Wynne B 2001, 'Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs', Science as Culture, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 445-481.