David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142 (2007)
The promise of scientific and technological innovation – particularly in fields such as nanotechnology – is increasingly set against what has been articulated as a deficit in public trust in both the new technologies and regulatory mechanisms. Whilst the development of new technology is cast as providing contributions to both quality of life and national competitiveness, what has been termed a ‘legitimacy crisis’ is seen as threatening the vitality of this process. However in contrast to the risk debates that dominated the technological controversies of the late 1990s the vitality of technological innovation is now cast as vulnerable to lack of public confidence and trust in the regulatory and governance structures upon which such innovation depends. In order to address this deficit in public trust, science policy has increasingly turned to the social sciences, suggesting that public values might be incorporated into the development of nanotechnology at an early stage. Public ambivalence therefore constitutes the problem addressed by the increasingly central role that public engagement and participation play in contemporary science policy. Although the recent proliferation of public engagement activities is premised on the need to address this ambivalence through direct engagement, we re-interpret ambivalence as an engaged – rather than passive – mode of relating to technological determinism. Whilst the move toward forms of direct public engagement might be regarded as symptomatic of the emergence of affective mode of governance we interpret public ambivalence as a nested set of enthusiasms and anxieties. Accordingly we suggest that public engagement might be re-thought, utilising ambivalence as a creative resource, rather than as the problem.
|Keywords||Nanotechnology Public engagement Deliberation Ambivalence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Iris Marion Young (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
Iris Marion Young (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown (1993). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
Seyla Benhabib (ed.) (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton University Press.
John S. Dryzek (1990). Discursive Democracy Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Citations of this work BETA
Chris Groves, Lori Frater, Robert Lee & Elen Stokes (2011). Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (4):525-552.
Christopher Groves (2009). Nanotechnology, Contingency and Finitude. NanoEthics 3 (1):1-16.
Kamilla Lein Kjølberg (2009). Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers — Implications for Public Participation. NanoEthics 3 (1):61-72.
Lieve Goorden, Michiel Van Oudheusden, Johan Evers & Marian Deblonde (2008). Lose One Another ... And Find One Another in Nanospace. 'Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (Nanosoc)'. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (3):213-230.
Trond Åm (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 5 (1):15-28.
Similar books and articles
Charles Thorpe (2010). Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. [REVIEW] Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
Margaret Stebbing (2009). Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):37-48.
Craig Cormick (2009). Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology? NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Mette Ebbesen (2008). The Role of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Nanotechnology Research and Development. NanoEthics 2 (3):333-333.
Phil Macnaghten, , Matthew B. Kearnes & Brian Wynne, Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?
Brian E. Wynne, Public Engagement as Means of Restoring Trust in Science? Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music.
Zubin Master & David B. Resnik (2013). Hype and Public Trust in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):321-335.
Robert Doubleday (2007). The Laboratory Revisited. NanoEthics 1 (2):167-176.
Brian Wynne (2011). Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800.
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #106,806 of 1,902,195 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #280,998 of 1,902,195 )
How can I increase my downloads?