Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement: Dilemmas, debates and prospects?

The Social Life of Nanotechnology

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 169-194

  Corner, Adam ^a   Pidgeon, Nick ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906291333     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203106471     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission. (2001). Crops on trial. London: Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission.
2. Allianz & OECD. (2005). Opportunities and risks of nanotechnology. Munich: Allianz.
3. Anderson, A., Peterson, A., Wilkinson, C., & Allan, S. (2009). Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Bal, R., & Cozzens, S. (2008, September 24-26). Public perceptions of NBIC technologies. Paper presented at Prime Latin American Conference at Mexico City.
5. Berube, D. (2005). Nano hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. New York: Prometheus.
6. Besley, J., Kramer V. L., Yao, Q., & Toumey, C. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30, 209-235.
7. Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science Technology and Human Values, 35(4), 474-500.
8. Burchell, K., & Holden, K. (Eds.). (2009). The roles of social science in public dialogue on science and technology: Report of a one-day stakeholder workshop. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
9. Burri, R., & Bellucci, S. (2008). Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 387-391.
10. Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environment, 52(1), 24-37.
11. Danish Board of Technology. (2009). World wide views on global warming. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.wwviews.org/files/images/WWViews_ info_sheet-v80-27_September%2009.pdf
12. Davies, S., Macnaghten P., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham, UK: Durham University.
13. Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.
14. Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.
15. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK. (2008). Report on public dialogue on nanotechnology for healthcare. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/pages/searchresults.aspx?query=nanotechnology%20 healthcare%20public%20dialogue
16. Ferrari, A., & Nordmann, A. (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham, UK: Durham University.
17. Feynman, R. (1959). There's plenty of room at the bottom. Retrieved March 2012, from www.its.caltech.edu/feynman/plenty.html
18. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 226-243.
19. Fischhoff, B., & Fischhoff, I. (2002). Publics' opinions of biotechnologies. AgBiotech Forum, 4(3-4), 155-162.
20. Flagg, B. (2005). Nanotechnology and the public: Part I of front-end analysis in support of nanoscale informal science education network. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files_static/evaluation/NISEFrtEndPart1Text. pdf
21. Flynn, R., Bellaby, P., & Ricci, M. (2009). The limits of upstream engagement: citizens' panels and deliberation over hydrogen energy technologies. Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis Conference: Karlstad, Sweden.
22. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk, pp. 251-274. Westport, CT: Praeger.
23. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? The final report of the nanotechnology engagement group. London: Involve.
24. Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93-109.
25. Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44, 167-184.
26. Hamlett, P., Cobb, M. D., & Guston, D. H. (2008). National citizens' technology forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement (CNS-ASU Report No. R08-0003). Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved March 2012, from http://cns.asu.edu/cns-library/type/?a ction=getfile&file=88§ion=lib
27. Hanssen, L., Walhout, B., & van Est, R. (2008). Ten lessons for a nanodialogue: The Dutch debate about nanotechnology thus far. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
28. Hart, P. (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates.
29. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Joss, S. (1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25(1), 2-22.
31. Kahan, D., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90.
32. Katz, E., Lovel, R., Mee, W., & Solomon, F. (2004). Citizens' panel on nanotechnology report to participants. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Minerals.
33. Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15(4), 291-307.
34. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.
35. Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559-573.
36. Kuzma, J., & Tanji, T. (2010). Unpacking synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options. Regulation & Governance, 4, 92-112.
37. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Wynne, B. (2005). Science and citizens. London: Zed Books.
38. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27, 268-291.
39. Miller, G., & Senjen, R. (2008). Out of the laboratory and onto our plates: Nanotechnology in food & agriculture. Australia: Friends of the Earth Australia Report.
40. National Science Foundation. (2007). Merit review broader impacts criterion: Representative activities. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
41. Nightingale, P., Smith, A., van Zwanenberg, P., Rafols, I., & Morgan, M. (2008). Nanomaterial innovations systems: Their structure, dynamics and regulation. A report for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Retrieved March 2012 from http://www.rcep.org.uk
42. Oakdene, H. (2007). Environmentally beneficial nanotechnologies. UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Retrieved March 2012, from http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/documents/ envbeneficial-append.pdf
43. Pidgeon, N. (1998). Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 5-15.
44. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, Tee. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 95-98.
45. Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Row, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & O'Riordan, T. (2005). Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 467-479.
46. Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2006). Reflecting upon the UK's citizens' jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 2(3), 167-178.
47. Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 191-210.
48. Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., Sauvulescu, J., Pidgeon, N., & Kruger, T. (2010). Draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research (the "Oxford Principles"). Reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of the session 2009-2010, HC221.
49. Renn, O., & Roco M. (2006). White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva, Switzerland: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).
50. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Responsible Nano Forum. (2009). A beacon or just a landmark? Reflections on the 2004 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.responsiblenanoforum.org/pdf/beacon_or_landmark_ report_rnf.pdf
52. Roco, M. (2004). The US National Nanotechnology Initiative after 3 years (2001-2003). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 1-10.
53. Roco, M., Mirkin, C.A., & Hersam, M.C. (Eds.). (2010). Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: Retrospective and outlook. Boston: Springer.
54. Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2007). Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Understanding of Science 16, 346-364.
55. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK Gm Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 331-352.
56. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. (2008). Novel materials in the environment: The case of nanotechnology. London: Twenty-seventh report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
57. The Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society.
58. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C.E.H., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752-758.
59. Sclove, R. (2010). Reinventing technology assessment: A 21st century model. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
60. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M. E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459-466.
61. Smallman, M., & Nieman, A. (2006). Small talk: Discussing nanotechnologies. London: Think-Lab.
62. Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A. & Jones, K. (2006). The received wisdom: opening up expert advice. London, UK: Demos.
63. Stilgoe, J. (2006). The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London: Demos.
64. Stilgoe, J. (2007). Nanodialogues: Experiments in public engagement with science. London: Demos.
65. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
66. Toumey, C., Reynolds, J. R., & Aggelopolou, A. (2006). Dialogue on nanotech: The South Carolina Citizens' School of Nanotechnology. Journal of Business Chemistry, 3(5), 3-8.
67. Walls, J., Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A., & O'Riordan, T. (2005). Seeking citizens' views on GM Crops-Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment, 47(7), 22-36.
68. Webler, T. (1999). The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research, 2(1), 55-71.
69. Werlin, R., Priester, J. H., Mielke, R. E., Kramer, S., Jackson, S., Stoimenov, P. K., Stucky, G. D., Cherr, G. N., Orias, E., & Holden, P. A. (2011). Biomagnification of cadmium selenide quantum dots in a simple experimental microbial food chain. Nature Nanotechnology, 6, 65-71.
70. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
71. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
72. Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2007). Nanotechnology: From the science to the social-the social, ethical and economic aspects of the debate. London: Economic and Social Research Council.