Understanding 'anticipatory governance'

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 218-242

  Guston, David H ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

anticipatory governance; emerging technologies; foresight; nanotechnology; public engagement; responsible innovation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; LEGAL ASPECT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; UNITED STATES;

GOVERNMENT REGULATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84896805158     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312713508669     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Adams V,Murphy M,Clarke AE.Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality.Subjectivity. 2009;28:246-265.
2. Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Allhoff FLin PMoor JWeckert J, ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2007:.
3. Al-Qasimi N. Presentation at the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies; 2011Los Angeles, CA; 2011.
4. Arora SK,Porter AL,Youtie J,Shapira P.Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: An updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs.Scientometrics. 2013;95:351-370.
5. BächlerG (2001) Conflict transformation through state reform. In: Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Available at: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/baechler_handbook.pdf (accessed 16 September 2013).
6. Barben D,Fisher E,Selin C,Guston DHThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch MWajcman J, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008:979-1000.
7. Bell L.Engaging the public in public policy: How far should museums go?.Museums & Social Issues. 2009;4 (1): 21-36.
8. Bennett IThe Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society: Presenting Futures. Fisher ESelin CWetmore JM, ed. New York: Springer; 2008:149-156.
9. Bennett I,Sarewitz D.Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States.Science as Culture. 2006;15 (4): 309-325.
10. Berne RWNanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers about Ethics, Meaning and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006:.
11. Berube DMNano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2006:.
12. Bimber BThe Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 1996:.
13. Bimber B,Guston DH.Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment.Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1997;54 (2-3): 125-130.
14. Bond PJNanotechnology: Societal Implications - Maximizing Benefits for Humanity. Roco MCBainbridge WS, ed. Arlington, VA: Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2005:16-21.
15. Bronk DW.The National Science Foundation: Origins, hopes, and aspirations.Science. 1975;188 (4187): 409-414.
16. Brown MBScience in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2009a:.
17. Brown S.The new deficit model.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009b;4:609-611.
18. Calleja-LópezAFisherE (2009) Dialogues from the Lab: Contemporary Maieutics for Socio-Technical Inquiry. In: Converging Technologies, Changing Societies: Proceedings of Society for Philosophy and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 7-10 July, pp. 79-80. Available at http://www.utwente.nl/gw/wijsb/archive/Archive%20activities/spt2009/programme/proceedings.pdf (accessed 22 October 2013).
19. Callon M,Lascoumes P,Barthe YActing in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2009:.
20. Calvert J,Martin P.The role of social scientists in synthetic biology.EMBO Reports. 2009;10:201-204.
21. Choi H,Mody CCM.The long history of molecular electronics: Microelectronics origins of nanotechnology.Social Studies of Science. 2009;39 (1): 11-50.
22. Cobb MD.Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2011;13:1533-1548.
23. Collingridge DThe Social Control of Technology. London: Primer; 1980:.
24. Cook-Deegan RThe Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 1994:.
25. Davies SR,Selin C,Gano G,Pereira AG.Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation.Cities. 2012;29 (6): 351-357.
26. Delgado A,Kjølberg KL,Wickson F.Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (6): 826-845.
27. Dupuy J-PNanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Allhoff FLin PMoor JWeckert J, ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007:119-131.
28. Feltmate BWBarriers to Achieving Sustainable Development in North America: Historical Naivety, Media Limitations, and Non-Anticipatory Governance. Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University; 1993:.
29. Fisher E.The political ethnography of lab-level bureaucrats: Probing the capacity of research decisions. Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association 68th Annual National Conference; 2010Chicago, IL; 2010.
30. Fisher E,Mahajan RL.Nanotechnology legislation: Contradictory intent? US Federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development.Science and Public Policy. 2006;33 (1): 5-16.
31. Fisher E,Rip AResponsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Owen RBessant JHeintz M, ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2013:165-183.
32. Fuerth LS.Foresight and anticipatory governance.Foresight. 2009;11 (4): 14-32.
33. Fuller S.Review of the handbook of science and technology studies.Isis. 2009;100 (1): 207-209.
34. Fuller S.The new behemoth (Review of 'Acting in an Uncertain World').Contemporary Sociology. 2010;39 (5): 533-536.
35. Funtowicz S,Ravetz J.Science for the post-normal age.Futures. 1993;25 (7): 739-755.
36. Gieryn TFCultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1999:.
37. Groves CR,Lee R,Frater L,Harper GDJCSR in the UK nanotechnology industry: Attitudes and prospects. Cardiff: Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability & Society; 2010:.
38. Gupta ASearching for shared norms: Global anticipatory governance of biotechnology. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2001:.
39. Guston DHNanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century. Cameron NM de SMitchell ME, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007:377-392.
40. Guston DHThe Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society: Presenting Futures. Fisher ESelin CWetmore JM, ed. New York: Springer; 2008:v-viii.
41. Guston DHResponsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Owen RBessant JHeintz M, ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2013:109-118.
42. Guston DH,Sarewitz D.Real-time technology assessment.Technology in Society. 2002;24 (1-2): 93-109.
43. Guston DH,Carlson M,Miller C,Poste G,Sarewitz D,Schneider ACNS-ASU annual report to the National Science Foundation, Year 1, for the period October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, NSF #0531194. Tempe, AZ: CNS-ASU; 2006:.
44. Guston DH,Carlson M,Miller C,Poste G,Sarewitz D,Schneider ACNS-ASU annual report to the National Science Foundation, Year 3, for the period October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, NSF #0531194. Tempe, AZ: CNS-ASU; 2008:.
45. GustonDHCarlsonMMillerCAPosteGSchneiderASarewitzDR (2004) Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center: Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University. NSF Proposal Number 0531194.
46. Guston DH,Corley E,Meldrum D,Miller C,Nelson A,Sarewitz DCNS-ASU annual report for the period October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, NSF #0531194. Tempe, AZ: CNS-ASU; 2010:.
47. Guston DH,Parsi J,Tosi JNanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Allhoff FLin PMoor JWeckert J, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007:185-197.
48. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch MWajcman J, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008:.
49. Hackett EJ,Conz D,Parker J,Bashford J,DeLay S.Tokamaks and turbulence: Research ensembles, policy, and technoscientific work.Research Policy. 2004;33 (5): 747-767.
50. Hamlett P,Cobb MD,Guston DHNational citizens' technology forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement. Tempe, AZ: CNS-ASU.; 2008:.
51. Nanotechnology research directions: Vision for nanotechnology in the next decade. Roco MCWilliams SAlivisatos P, ed. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council; 1999:.
52. Irwin AThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch MWajcman J, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008:583-607.
53. Joly P-B,Kaufmann A.Lost in translation? The need for 'upstream engagement' with nanotechnology on trial.Science as Culture. 2008;17 (3): 225-247.
54. JoyB (2000) Why the future doesn't need us. Wired8(4). Available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (accessed 21 October 2013).
55. Kaiser MGoverning Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Kaiser MKurath MMaasen SRehmann-Sutter C, ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:179-197.
56. Karinen R,Guston DHGoverning Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Kaiser MKurath MMaasen SRehmann-Sutter C, ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:217-232.
57. Kehrt C,Schüßler PGoverning Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Kaiser MKurath MMaasen SRehmann-Sutter C, ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:37-53.
58. Kim E-S.Directed evolution: A historical exploration into an evolutionary experimental system of nanobiotechnology, 1965-2000.Minerva. 2008;46 (4): 463-484.
59. Kurath M,Gisler P.Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 559-573.
60. Kuzma J,Tanji T.Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options.Regulation & Governance. 2010;4 (1): 92-112.
61. Liebert W,Schmidt JC.Collingridge's dilemma and technoscience: An attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science.Poiesis & Praxis. 2010a;7 (1): 55-71.
62. Liebert W,Schmidt JC.Towards a prospective technology assessment: Challenges and requirements for technology assessment in the age of technoscience.Poiesis & Praxis. 2010b;7 (1-2): 99-116.
63. Lindblom CE.The science of muddling through.Public Administration Review. 1959;19 (2): 79-88.
64. Lipsky MStreet-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1980:.
65. McCarthy E,Kelty C.Responsibility and nanotechnology.Social Studies of Science. 2010;40 (3): 405-432.
66. McCray WP.Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future.History and Technology. 2005;21 (2): 177-203.
67. McCray WP.MBE deserves a place in the history books.Nature Nanotechnology. 2007;2:259-261.
68. McCray WPThe Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies and a Limitless Future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2013:.
69. McGrail S.Nano dreams and nightmares: Emerging technoscience and the framing and (re)interpreting of the future, present and past.Journal of Futures Studies. 2010;14 (4): 23-48.
70. Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam Company; 1930:.
71. Milburn CNanovision: Engineering the Future. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2008:.
72. Miller C,Bennett I.Thinking longer term about technology: Is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?.Science and Public Policy. 2008;35 (8): 597-606.
73. Miller R,Poli R,Rossel PThe discipline of anticipation: Exploring key issues. Paris: UNESCO/The Rockefeller Foundation; 2013:.
74. Science and Technology Advice for Congress. Morgan MGPeha JM, ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press; 2003:.
75. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan. Arlington, VA: Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2000:.
76. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic plan. Arlington, VA: Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2004:.
77. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic plan. Arlington, VA: Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2007:.
78. NNI strategic plan stakeholder report. Arlington, VA: Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2011:.
79. Committee on Science and Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1969:.
80. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2004) Nano-scale science and engineering education: Program solicitation for fiscal year 2005. NSF 04-043. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04043/nsf04043.htm (accessed 21 October 2013).
81. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2011) FY 2011 NSF budget request to Congress: NSF-wide investments. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011/pdf/23-NSF-Wide_Investments_fy2011.pdf (accessed 21 October 2013).
82. Nordmann A.If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics.NanoEthics. 2007;1 (1): 31-46.
83. Nordmann A.A forensics of wishing: Technology assessment in the age of technoscience.Poiesis & Praxis. 2010;7 (1): 5-15.
84. Nordmann A,Schwarz AGoverning Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Kaiser MKurath MMaasen SRehmann-Sutter C, ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:255-278.
85. Nowotny H.How many policy rooms are there? Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2007;32 (4): 479-490.
86. Osborne DT,Gaebler TReinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Addison-Wesley; 1993:.
87. Owen R,Macnaghten P,Stilgoe J.Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society.Science and Public Policy. 2012;39 (6): 751-760.
88. Ozdemir V,Husereau D,Hyland S,Samper S,Salleh MZ.Personalized medicine beyond genomics: New technologies, global health diplomacy and anticipatory governance.Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine. 2009;7 (4): 225-230.
89. Porter AL,Youtie J.How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2009;11 (5): 1023-1041.
90. Quay R.Anticipatory governance: A tool for climate change adaptation.Journal of the American Planning Association. 2010;76 (4): 496-511.
91. Rabinow P,Bennett G.Synthetic biology: Ethical ramifications 2009.Systems and Synthetic Biology. 2009;3:99-108.
92. Rabinow P,Bennett GDesigning Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2012:.
93. Rip A,Shelley-Egan CUnderstanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy. Von Schomberg RDavies S, ed. Brussels: European Union; 2010:31-38.
94. Robert JS,Miller CA,Milleson VThe Yearbook of Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future. Hays SARobert JSMiller CABennett I, ed. New York: Springer; 2013:1-17.
95. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Roco MCBainbridge WS, ed. Arlington, VA: Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, National Science Foundation; 2001:.
96. Nanotechnology: Societal Implications - Maximizing Benefits for Humanity. Roco MCBainbridge WS, ed. Arlington, VA: Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 2005:.
97. Rogers JD,Youtie J,Kay L.Program-level assessment of research centers: Contribution of nanoscale science and engineering centers to US nanotechnology national initiative goals.Research Evaluation. 2012;21 (5): 368-380.
98. Sarewitz DThe Growing Gap between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem. Marchant GEAllenby BRHerkert JR, ed. New York: Springer; 2011:95-106.
99. Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. Sarewitz DPielke RAByerly R, ed. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2000:.
100. Schot J,Rip A.The past and the future of constructive technology assessment.Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1997;54 (2-3): 251-268.
101. Schuurbiers D,Fisher E.Lab-scale intervention.EMBO Reports. 2009;10 (5): 424-427.
102. Sclove RReinventing technology assessment: a 21st century model. Science and Technology Innovation Program, STIP 01. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center; 2010:.
103. Selin CCNS visioning workshop report: Creating scenarios about the future of anticipatory governance. Tempe, AZ: CNS-ASU; 2008a:.
104. Selin C.The sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time.Sociology Compass. 2008b;2 (6): 1878-1895.
105. Selin C,Hudson R.Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue.Technology in Society. 2010;32 (3): 173-182.
106. Shapira P,Youtie J,Porter AL.The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology.Scientometrics. 2010;85 (2): 595-611.
107. Toffler AFuture Shock. New York: Random House; 1970:.
108. Toffler A.What is anticipatory democracy?.The Futurist. 1975;:224-229.
109. Toumey CInternational Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Hodge GABowman DMMaynard AD, ed. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2010:46-59.
110. US House of Representatives (2006) Making appropriations for science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. House report 109-272. Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/10?cp109:temp/~cp109Id9ky&sid=cp109Id9ky&item=10&sel=TOCLIST&l_f=1&l_file=list/cp109co.lst&report=hr272.109&hd_count=50&20&&&l_t=30&&& (accessed 16 September 2013).
111. Webster A.Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2007;32 (4): 458-478.
112. Weiner CAre Genes Us? The Social Consequences of the New Genetics. Cranor CF, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1994:31-55.
113. Williams R.Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures.Science as Culture. 2006;15 (4): 327-348.
114. Wilsdon J,Willis RSee-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos; 2004:.
115. WinnerL (2003) Societal Implications of Nanotechnology: Testimony to the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives, April9. Available at: http://ethics.iit.edu/NanoEthicsBank/node/1187 (accessed 16 September 2013).
116. Wynne B.Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2007;32 (4): 491-503.