Cross-national comparative communication and deliberation about the risks of nanotechnologies

The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 147-155

  Pidgeon, Nick ^a   Harthorn, Barbara Herr ^b   Satterfield, Terre ^c   Demski, Christina ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Nanotechnologies; Public engagement; Responsible innovation; Risk; Risk issues; Upstream engagement; US UK cross cultural similarities

Indexed keywords

EID: 85053776494     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.16     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

1. Arnall, A. H., and Parr, D. (2005). Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution. Technology in Society, 27, 23-38.
2. Árvai, J., Gregory, R. and McDaniels, T. (2001). Testing a structured decision-aiding approach: value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21, 1065-1076.
3. Bammer, G., and Smithson, M. (2008). Uncertainty and risk: multidisciplinary perspectives. London: Earthscan.
4. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., and Guston, D. M. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement and integration. In: E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M.Lynch, and J Wajcman, eds., The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 979-1000.
5. Barvosa, E. (2015). Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA. Journal of Environmental Studies of Science, 5, 497-507.
6. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N., and Lenton, T. (2013). “Opening up” geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926-937.
7. Bellamy, R., and Lezaun, J. (2015). Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662515600965
8. Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2008). Constructing responsibility for risk(s): negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1312-1330.
9. Bierle, T. C., and Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
10. Brown J., and Isaccs, D. (2005). The world café: shaping our future through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
11. Burns, W. C. G., and Flegal, J. A (2015). Climate geoengineering and the role of public deliberation: a comment on the US National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations on public participation. Climate Law, 5, 252-294.
12. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., and Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., and Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18.
14. Chilvers, J., and Burgess, J. (2008). Power relations: the politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1881-900.
15. Chilvers, J., and Kearns, M. (Eds.). (2016). Remaking participation.London: Routledge.
16. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
17. Corner, A. J., Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., and Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23, 938-947.
18. Corner, A., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2012). Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement: dilemmas, debates and prospects? In: B. H. Harthorn and J. Mohr, eds., The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge, 171-194.
19. Davies, S. R., and Macnaghten, P. (2010). Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 4(2), 141-151.
20. Davies, S. R., and Selin, C. (2012). Energy futures: five dilemmas of the practice of anticipatory governance. Environmental Communication, 6(1), 119-136.
21. de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., Ramirez, A.R., Faaij, A., Hendriks, C., and de Visser, E. (2009). Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia, 1, 4795-4802.
22. Delgado, A., Kølberg, K. L., and Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnologies. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826-845.
23. Demski, C. C. (2011). Public perceptions of renewable energy technologies: challenging the notion of widespread support. Doctoral thesis, Cardiff University.
24. Demski, C. C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., Spence, A., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Public values for energy system change. Global Environmental Change, 34, 59-69.
25. Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(3), 14081-14087.
26. Felt, U., and Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48, 219-238.
27. Fiorino, D. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
28. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
29. Mays, C. (2004). Where does it go? Methods and social representation of radioactive waste management in France. In: Å. Boholm and R. Löfstedt, eds., Facility siting: risk power and identity in land use planning. London: Earthscan, 21-43.
30. McCray, W. P. (2012). The visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31. Morgan, G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: a mental model approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, G. M., and Leighninger, M. (2012). Democracy in motion: evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Niewöhner, J., Cox, P., Gerrard, S., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Evaluating the efficacy of a mental models approach for improving occupational chemical risk protection. Risk Analysis, 24, 349-361.
34. Pidgeon, N. F. (1988). Risk assessment and accident analysis. Acta Psychologica, 68, 355-368.
35. Pidgeon, N. F. (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.
36. Pidgeon, N. F., and Demski, C. C. (2012). From nuclear to renewable: energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(4), 41-51.
37. Pidgeon, N. F., Demski, C. C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., and Spence, A. (2014). Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(Suppl. 4), 13606-13613.
38. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K., and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnology for energy and health applications in the US and UK. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-98.
39. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B., and Satterfield, T. (2011). Nanotechnology risk perception and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Analysis, 31, 1694-1700.
40. Pidgeon, N. F., and Henwood, K. L. (2004). Grounded theory. In: M. Hardy and A. Bryman, eds., Handbook of data analysis.London: SAGE, 625-648.
41. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., and Gibson, R. (1992). Risk perception. In: Risk-analysis, perception and management: report of a Royal Society study group. London: Royal Society, 89-134.
42. Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Corner, A., and Vaughan, N.(2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3(5), 451-457.
43. Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., and 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), 467-480.
44. Pidgeon, N. F., and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health, Risk and Society, 9, 191-210.
45. Rayner, S. (2004). The novelty trap: why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Industry and Higher Education, 18(5), 340-55.
46. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.
47. Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
48. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society. the approach of constructive technology assessment. London and New York: Pinter.
49. Roco, M., and Bainbridge, W. S. (2003a). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
50. Roco, M., and Bainbridge W. S. (2003b). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
51. Rogers-Brown, J. B., Shearer, C., and Herr-Harthorn, B. (2011). From biotech to nanotech: public debates about technological modification of food. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 2, 149-169.
52. 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.
53. Rosa, E. A. (1998). Meta theoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 15-44.
54. Rosa, E. A. (2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Metatheorectical foundations and policy implications. In: N. F. Pidgeon, R. K. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, eds., The social amplification of risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 47-79.
55. Rosa, E. A., and Clarke, D. L. Jr. (1999). Historical routes to technological gridlock: nuclear power as a prototype vehicle. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 21-57.
56. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. (2008). Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. London: The Stationary Office.
57. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: Author.
58. Satterfield, T., Conti, J., Harthorn, B., Pidgeon, N., and Pitts, A. (2013). Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Science and Public Policy, 40(2), 247-260.
59. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti J., and Harthorn, B. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752-758.
60. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., and Ho, S. S. (2008). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-94.
61. Shirani, F., Parkhill, K., Butler, C., Groves, C., Henwood, K., and Pidgeon, N. (2016). Asking about the future: methodological insights from energy biographies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 429-444.
62. Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., and Gutscher, H. (Eds.). (2007). Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. London: Earthscan.
63. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., and Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59-69.
64. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
65. Smithson, M. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms.London: Springer.
66. Stern, P. C., and Fineberg, H. C. (1996). Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: US National Research Council.
67. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568-1580.
68. Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, eds., Science and citizens: globalisation and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books, 218-231.
69. Thomas, M. J., Pidgeon, N. F., Whitmarsh, L., and Ballinger, R. (2015). Mental models of sea-level change: a mixed methods analysis on the Severn Estuary, UK. Global Environmental Change, 33, 71-82.
70. Turner, B. A. (1978). Man-made disasters. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
71. Vance, M. E., Kuiken, T., Vejerano, E. P., McGinnis, S. P., Hochella, M. F. Jr., Rejeski, D., and Hull, M. S. (2015). Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 6, 1769-1780.
72. Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
73. Wilsdon, J., and Willis, R. (2004). See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
74. Wynne, B. (2016). Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and science in a time of expert dogma and denial. In: J. Chilvers and M. Kearns, eds., Remaking participation. London: Routledge, 99-120.
75. Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology, & Society, 1, 99-110.
76. Wynne, B. (1992). Risk and social learning: reification to engagement. In: S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds., Social theories of risk. Westport CT: Praeger, 275-300.