Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

NanoEthics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 7-16

  Rip, Arie ^a   van Lente, Harro ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Constructive technology assessment; Nanotechnology; Reflexivity; Responsible innovation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876945558     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Den Boer D, Rip A, Speller S (2009) Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: a methodology which enhances reflexivity. Technol Soc 31(3): 295-304.
2. Dorbeck-Jung B, van Amerom M (2008) The hardness of soft law in the United Kingdom: state and non-state regulatory conceptions related to nanotechnological development. In: Verschuren J, Schooten-van der Meer H (eds) The state legislature and non-state law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129-150.
3. Doubleday R (2007) Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 2: 211-227.
4. Fisher E, Rip A (forthcoming) Responsible innovation: multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
5. Garud R, Ahlstrom D (1997) Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J Eng Technol Manag 14: 25-48.
6. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? the final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London.
7. Hanssen L (2009) From transmission toward transaction. Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology. Dissertation, University of Twente.
8. Joly P-B, Rip A, Callon M (2010) Reinventing innovation. In: Arentsen M, van Rossum W, Steenge B (eds) Governance of innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19-32.
9. Kearnes M, Rip A (2009) The emergent goverance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Heidelberg, pp 97-121.
10. Krabbenborg L (forthcoming) The challenge of public-sphere type interactions between enactors of nanotechnology and civil society actors. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
11. Krupp F, Holliday C (2005) Let's get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, June 14. Management Supplement, B2.
12. Parandian A (2012) Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies. Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. Dissertation, Technical University Delft.
13. Parandian A, Rip A, Te Kulve H (2012) Dual dynamics of promises and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(6): 565-582.
14. Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4): 349-365.
15. Rip A (2009) Futures of ELSA. EMBO Rep 10(7): 666-670.
16. Rip A (2010) De facto governance of nanotechnologies. In: Goodwin M, Koops B-J, Leenes R (eds) Dimensions of technology regulation. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 285-308.
17. Rip A (2012) Futures of technology assessment. In: Decker M, Grunwald A, Knapp M (eds) Der Systemblick auf Innovation-Technikfolgenabschätzung in der Technikgestaltung. Edition Sigma Verlag, Berlin, pp 29-39.
18. Rip A (2012) The context of innovation journeys. Creat Innov Manag 21(2): 158-170.
19. Rip A, Robinson DKR (forthcoming) Constructive technology assessment and the methodology of insertion. In: van de Poel I, Doorn N, Schuurbiers D, Gorman ME (eds) Opening up the laboratory: approaches for early engagement with new technologies. Wiley-Blackwell.
20. Rip A, Shelley-Egan C (2010) Positions and responsibilities in the "real" world of nanotechnology. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for framing public policy. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, pp 31-38.
21. Rip A, Te Kulve H (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume I: presenting futures. Springer, Berlin, pp 49-70.
22. Rip A, van Amerom M (2010) Emerging de facto agendas around nanotechnology: two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs, and lock-ins. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131-155.
23. Robinson DKR (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76: 1222-1239.
24. Robinson DKR (2010) Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. Dissertation, University of Twente.
25. Robinson DKR, Propp T (2008) Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in emerging S& T. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75: 517-538.
26. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers). Available at http://www. wtec. org/loyola/nano/NSET. Societal. Implications/nanosi. pdf.
27. Ruivenkamp M (2011) Circulating images of nanotechnology. Dissertation, University of Twente.
28. Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 54: 251-268.
29. Shelley-Egan C (2011) Ethics in practice: responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Dissertation, University of Twente.
30. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1: 3-20.
31. Te Kulve H (2011) Anticipatory interventions in the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Dissertation, University of Twente.
32. van der Most F (2009) Research councils facing new science and technology. The case of nanotechnology in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Dissertation, University of Twente.
33. van Est Q, Malsch I, Rip A (2004) Om het kleine te waarderen. Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague, Werkdocument 93.
34. van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. Dissertation, University of Twente.
35. van Lente H, Bakker S (2010) Competing expectations: the case of hydrogen storage technologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 22(6): 693-709.
36. van Lente H, van Til J (2007) A combined roadmapping-cluster approach for emerging technologies. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 3(2): 121-138.
37. van Lente H, van Til J (2008) Articulation of sustainability in the emerging field of nanocoatings. J Clean Prod 16: 967-976.
38. van Merkerk RO (2007) Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies: a CTA of Lab on a chip technology. Dissertation, Utrecht University.
39. van Merkerk RO, van Lente H (2005) Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: the case of nanotubes. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72: 1094-1111.
40. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London.