Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in australia
Nanoethics 4 (1):53-66 (2010)
|Abstract||There are increasing calls internationally for the development of regulation and policies related to the rapidly growing nanotechnologies sector. As part of the process of policy formation, it is widely accepted that deliberative community engagement processes should be included, enabling publics to have a say about nanotechnologies, expressing their hopes and fears, issues and concerns, and that these will be considered as part of the policy process. The Australian Federal and State governments have demonstrated a commitment to these ideals, undertaking a number of public engagement activities in recent years. However, despite promises that these community engagement activities will enable policy makers to identify complex and contested community attitudes, and that these will be included as part of the policy making process, a closer look at Australia’s engagement activities reveals something quite different. Through an analysis of a number of Australia’s nano-engagement activities, this paper demonstrates the limits of public engagement related to the development of nanotechnology related policies and regulation in Australia. Our analysis reveals the extent to which industry interests have captured policy makers and regulators, dissenting voices have been excluded from engagement processes, and engagement processes have not connected with actual policy making activities. Reflecting on these limits, this paper concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement processes related to nanotechnologies in Australia.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne (2007). On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1 (2).
Alison Mohr (2011). Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):667-672.
V. M. Marsh, D. K. Kamuya, M. J. Parker & C. S. Molyneux (2011). Working with Concepts: The Role of Community in International Collaborative Biomedical Research. Public Health Ethics 4 (1):26-39.
David Castle (2006). The Balance Between Expertise and Authority in Citizen Engagement About New Biotechnology. Techné 9 (3):1-13.
Peta Cook (2011). What Constitutes Adequate Public Consultation? Xenotransplantation Proceeds in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):67-70.
Tee Rogers-Hayden, Alison Mohr & Nick Pidgeon (2007). Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies – Engaging Differently? NanoEthics 1 (2).
Craig Cormick (2010). The Challenges of Community Engagement. Nanoethics 4 (3):229-231.
Wayne S. Mcgowan & Lee Partridge (forthcoming). Student Engagement and Making Community Happen. Educational Philosophy and Theory.
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1).
Haico Te Kulve & Arie Rip (2011). Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-Engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):699-714.
Added to index2009-10-28
Total downloads13 ( #87,888 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?