Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assembling Upstream Engagement: the Case of the Portuguese Deliberative Forum on Nanotechnologies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes a deliberative forum on nanotechnologies, organized in Portugal within the scope of the research project DEEPEN—Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies. This event included scientists, science communicators and members of the “lay public”, and resulted in a position document which summarizes collective aspirations and concerns related to nano. Drawing upon our previous experience with focus groups on nanotechnologies—characterized by methodological innovations that aimed at suspending epistemological inequalities between participants—this paper delves into the performativity of the deliberative event, exploring some of the tensions and power/knowledge asymmetries generated by the forum. Recognizing that the design of participatory assemblages matters, we reflect on our role as facilitators and explore the difficulties in organizing exercises of upstream engagement with emerging technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Althusser L (2008) On ideology. Verso, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy R, Lezaun J (2015) Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 26:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515600965

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blok V, Lemmens P (2015) The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In: Van den Hoven J, Koops EJ, Romijn HA, Swierstra TE, Oosterlaken I (eds) Responsible innovation: issues in conceptualization, governance and implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 19–35

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boal A (1979) Theatre of the oppressed. Pluto Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burri RV (2009) Coping with uncertainty: assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst Sci 18(4):498–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Callon M (2007) What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In: MacKenzie D, Muniesa F, Siu L (eds) Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 311–357

  8. Callon M (2008) Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: from prosthetic agencies to habilitated agencies. In: Pinch T, Swedberg R (eds) Living in a material world: economic sociology meets science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 29–56

    Google Scholar 

  9. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique. Le Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  10. Callon M, Muniesa F (2003) Les marchés économiques comme dispositifs collectifs de calcul. Réseaux 21(122):189–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carvalho A, Nunes JA (2013) Technology, methodology and intervention: performing nanoethics in Portugal. NanoEthics 7(2):149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davies SR, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P (2010) Nanotechnology and public engagement: a new kind of (social) science? In: Kjolberg KL, Wickson F (eds) Nano meets macro: social perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, pp 473–499

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Davies SR, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2):141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dewey J. (1991) Logic: the theory of inquiry - the later works, Vol.12. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL

  15. Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Flynn R, Bellaby P, Ricci M (2011) The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies. In: Devine-Wright P (ed) Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation. Earthscan, London, pp 245–259

  18. Fonseca PF, Pereira TS (2017) Pesquisa e desenvolvimento responsável? Traduzindo ausências a partir da nanotecnologia em Portugal. Hist Cienc Saude-Manguinhos 24(1):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Foucault M (1988) Technologies of the self. In: Martin LH, Gutman H, Hutton PH (eds) Technologies of the self, a seminar with Michel Foucault. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, pp 16–49

    Google Scholar 

  21. Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goodin RE (2008) Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Grin J, Grunwald A (2000) Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hamlett P, Cobb M (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Studies Journal 34(4):629–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility - in search of an ethics for the technological age. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinman D, Delborne J, Anderson A (2011) Engaging citizens: the high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Underst Sci 20(2):221–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyle R, Dodds S (2009) Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies. Sci Eng Ethics 15(1):81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lucivero F (2015) Ethical assessments of emerging technologies: appraising the moral plausibility of technological visions (Vol. 15). Springer, London

  31. Macnaghten P, Davies SR, Kearnes MB (2015) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. J Environ Policy Plan:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110

  32. Macnaghten P, Guivant J (2011) Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Underst Sci 20(2):207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mejlgaard N (2009) The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: changing balances between public competence and public participation. Sci Public Policy 36(6):483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mills CW (1959) The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rowe G, Frewer J (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rowe G, Marsh R, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Sci Technol Hum Values 29(1):89–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rowe G, Marsh R, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sciencewise (2016) Quality in public dialogue—a framework for assessing the quality of public dialogue. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/quality-in-public-dialogue-a-framework-for-assessing-the-quality-of-public-dialogue. Accessed 12 Dec 2017

  40. Sclove R (1995) Democracy and technology. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. van der Burg S (2016) A lay ethics quest for technological futures: about tradition, narrative and decision-making. NanoEthics 10(3):233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Viseu A (2015) Caring for nanotechnology? Being an integrated social scientist. Soc Stud Sci 45(5):642–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    António Carvalho

  2. Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    António Carvalho & João Arriscado Nunes

Authors
  1. António Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Arriscado Nunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to António Carvalho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvalho, A., Nunes, J.A. Assembling Upstream Engagement: the Case of the Portuguese Deliberative Forum on Nanotechnologies. Nanoethics 12, 99–113 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0314-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0314-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation