Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 53-59

  Guston, David H ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

consensus conferences; governance of science and technology; nanotechnology; participation in science policy; public participation; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARIZONA; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; HUMAN; NANOTECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

ARIZONA; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84892464203     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662513476403     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Bal RYearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume II: The Challenges of Equity, Equality, and Development. Wetmore JCozzens S, ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2011:231-249.
2. Bell L.Engaging the public in public policy: How far should museums go?.Museums and Social Issues. 2009;4 (1): 21-36.
3. Chhetri N,Grossman G.Policy makers versus people.The Cairo Review of Global Affairs. 2012;5:118-125.
4. Cobb M.Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2011;13 (4): 1533-1548.
5. Cobb MNanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication. Hornig Priest S, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012:93-103.
6. Cobb M,Gano G.Evaluating structured deliberations about emerging technologies: Post-process participant evaluation.International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society. 2012;10:96-110.
7. Cobb M,Gano G.Empowerment and social learning: Long term benefits of citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancement. Midwestern Political Science Association annual meeting; 2013Chicago, IL; 2013.
8. Davies SR,Selin C.Energy futures: Five dilemmas of the practice of anticipatory governance.Environmental Communication. 2012;6 (1): 119-136.
9. Davies SR,Selin C,Gano G,Pereira A.Finding futures. Presentation at Science in a Digital Society, EC-JRC Workshop; 2011Lisbon; 2011.
10. Davies SR,Selin C,Gano G,Pereira A.Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation.Cities. 2012;29 (6): 351-357.
11. Delborne JA,Anderson AA,Kleinman DL,Colin M,Powell M.Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences.; 2011; 2011. 367.
12. Gieryn TEHandbook of Science and Technology Studies. Jasanoff SMarkle GPinch TPeterson J, ed. Beverly Hills: SAGE; 1995:393-443.
13. Guston DH.Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.Science, Technology & Human Values. 1999;24 (4): 451-482.
14. Guston DH.Deliberating nanotechnology in the U.S.British Science Association's People & Science. 2009;22:.
15. Guston DH.Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2011;17 (4): 691-697.
16. Hamlett P.Adapting the Internet to citizen deliberations: Lessons learned. IEEE 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS '02): Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology. Proceedings; 2002; 2002. 213.
17. Hamlett P,Cobb M,Guston DHNational Citizens Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement. Tempe, AZ: Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University; 2008:.
18. Hays S,Miller CA,Cobb MYearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume III: Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future. Hays SRobert JSMiller CABennett I, ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2013:43-66.
19. Jasanoff S.Constitutional moments in governing science and technology.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2011;17 (4): 621-638.
20. Kleinman DL,Delborne JA,Anderson AA.Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (2): 221-240.
21. Mooney CThe Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books; 2006:.
22. Philbrick M,Barandiaran J.The National Citizens' Technology Forum: Lessons for the future.Science and Public Policy. 2009;36 (5): 335-347.
23. Powell M,Colin M,Kleinman DL,Delborne J,Anderson A.Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies.Science as Culture. 2011a;30 (1): 37-70.
24. Powell M,Delborne J,Colin M.Beyond engagement exercises: Exploring the US National Citizens' Technology Forum from the bottom-up.Journal of Public Deliberation. 2011b;7 (1): 4.
25. Rask M,Worthington RCitizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. Worthington RRask MLammi M, ed. London: Verso; 2011:1-19.
26. Sarewitz DIssues in Science and Technology. Summer:; 2009:89-94.
27. Sclove REIssues in Science and Technology. Fall:; 2010:34-38.
28. Selin C,Boradkar P.Prototyping nanotechnology: A pedagogic approach to responsible innovation.Journal of Nanotechnology Education. 2010;2 (1-2): 1-12.
29. Wickson F,Cobb MD,Hamlett PConsumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies. Throne-Holst HSoto EStrandbakken PScholl G, ed. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing; forthcoming:.
30. Wiek A,Foley RW,Guston DH.Nanotechnology for sustainability: What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems?.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2012 1093;14:.
31. Winner LAutonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1977:.