Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberating responsibility: a collective contribution by the C’Nano IdF Nanoscience & Society Office

  • Published:
Foundations of Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The very existence of explicit techno-scientific controversies in the “nano” arena is often denied on behalf of a conception of science, risks, public engagement and responsibility which borders on a disembodied idealism and merits at least serious discussion. The recurrence of this view prompted us to clarify our position regarding our common field of research, in order to avoid being trapped in the seemingly clear divide between the universal and neutral pursuit of pure science, on the one hand, and on the other hand the infinite variety of values and opinions that lead to the horrors throes of pure relativism. We therefore launched an internal trans-disciplinary project, in order to overhaul the premises underpinning both this idealistic standpoint and our own work, and to find a better definition of our approach to the exploration of the real policy implications of NST research initiatives. Indeed, the debates surrounding NST clearly have wider implications for the examination of issues of Science, Technology and Society as a whole. A first step in this clarification process was taken in Paris, at the conference which has now been published in this issue of Foundations of Chemistry. We further develop it in this paper, in the hope that it will contribute to the joint construction of a better nano-future.

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

Notes

  1. The C’Nano IdF has funded a series of one-year research programs along its Nanocience & Society axis. In 2006: ERMAN (Impact of nanotechnology on markets emergence and reconfiguration: The role of public framing); NanoTubTox (Carbon nanotubes effects on the respiratory system: The roles of intracellular localization of nanotubes, aggregate formation and surface reactivity); Pilote (Epistemological and social dynamics of nanobiotechnologies in technological convergence:). In 2007: NanoTubTox2; Nanolex (Survey and observatory work in juridical issues of nanosciences and nanotechnologies); ANS (On the mode of existence of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in the public space); Nanobiomachines (Philosophical study of nanobiotechnologies and molecular biomachines). In 2008: C’nanoTubBio (Biological response to carbon nanotubes); CSN (Circulation and/or synergy? Epistemological and social dynamics in nanosciences); ECCIM (Collective engagements in nanotech firms and market infrastructures). In 2009: Nanoaerosols (Metrology of nanoparticles in air); Nanomique (Toxicogenomics for assessing the risks of nanoparticles on human health; their taxonomy with regard to their effects on human cells); EnSeine (Interactions between nanoparticles and cells in the waters of ‘la Seine’: A study of the relationships between physico-chemical parameters and cellular responses). In 2010: SHO (Oral history project on the web for mapping the memory of recent materials and nano research); NanoWeb (Transdisciplinary study of representation and diffusion of nano-images on the web); NanoDig (Study of TiO2 nanoparticles transfer through gastro-intestinal epithelium); SurfNanotox (Structural modification of proteins exposed to nanomaterials); ACESS nano (Analysis of epistemological and social controversies of nanosciences and nanotechnologies). In 2011: NanoTox (Study of nanoparticles toxicity in biological milieus). In 2012: NanoRespiPhagie (Respiratory macrophage response to nanomaterials).

  2. Note that we do not say that science is “a social activity like any other” because all social activities undergo different norms, ethos, and practices. Accordingly, science is a social activity different from any other, but not more different than any other. Yes, science is different from trade, but it is not more different from trade than trade is different from art. It is ‘differently different’, as all social activities are.

  3. In a 1990 afterword to Engines of Creation, Eric Drexler wrote: “Some have mistakenly imagined that my aim is to promote nanotechnology; it is, instead, to promote understanding of nanotechnology and its consequences, which is another matter entirely. Nonetheless, I am now persuaded that the sooner we start serious development efforts, the longer we will have for serious public debate. Why? Because serious debate will start with those serious efforts, and the sooner we start, the poorer our technology base will be. An early start will thus mean slower progress and hence more time to consider the consequences”.

  4. E.g. the call by the NNI architect, Mihail Roco, in 2003: “An appeal is made to (…) initiate societal implications studies from the beginning of the nanotechnology programs, and to communicate effectively the goals and potential risks with users and public. By this message, we try to encourage various research and funding communities to raise the recognition of research on societal implications to the level of scientific and engineering topics as agents of change, and involve social scientists and economists in R&D groups”.

  5. “Be rational about responsibilities for nanotechnologies”, Current trends in Communicating Nanoethics, Interview with Dr. Nayla Farouki, adviser to CEA, France, published on Feb 27, 2012 by Ineke Malsch, available from http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/document/3713/.

  6. It refers, in fact, to the model of knowledge construction that was advanced at the turn of the 20th century, and especially during the Chicago World Fair in 1933, the origin of the motto “Science finds, industry applies, public adapts”.

  7. E.g. in the cosmetic and novel food regulations.

  8. Traduction libre de: “M. X (chercheur au CNRS): (…) refuser la connaissance, c’est ouvrir les portes à l’ignorance, à toutes les dérives et les manipulations possibles derrière. Quand vous dites qu’on va en balancer partout (NDR: des nanoparticules), d’où tirez-vous cette information? Qui vous a dit cela? Mme Y (Membre de l’association Les Amis de la Terre): des pneus avec des tubes de carbone, leur usure fait que…Vous avez déjà des nanoparticules sur les murs ou sur les ciments. Je ne fais que lire ce qui est écrit…M. X: la matière sous forme nanoparticulaires est utilisée depuis plusieurs siècles autour de vous.Mme Y: le problème c’est qu’on va le faire à une échelle telle… M. X: on vous explique que l’on va mieux comprendre de quoi est faite cette matière et quels seront ses effets. Vous refusez cette compréhension-là. C’est étrange comme position”.

  9. Like ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, the term ‘stakeholder’ comes from management. Forged after the term ‘shareholder’ (the owner—individual or institutional—of a share in a private company), it refers to “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” (Freeman et al. 1983, p. 88). Originally, the ‘stakeholder management’ model referred to an extension of a private company’s sphere of accountability from its sole shareholders to its employees, neighbors, users, and potentially to anyone affected by the company’s activities, i.e. who has something ‘at stake’. Of course, the ‘stakeholder model’ as employed in science-society debates is subject to criticism, but not because of its excessive inclusivity in involving ‘illegitimate’ stakeholders’—i.e. people or groups who are not directly exposed to claimed risks—as some contend (see Nayla Farouki’s interview quoted above). On the contrary! To us, the problem with the current abuse of the term ‘stakeholder’ in public engagement is rather that it tends to divert attention from the shareholders themselves, from their investments, their interests and the ‘return rate’ they expect—a dimension that the ‘stakeholders’ themselves, whether ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’, are more than familiar with.

  10. “La première conquête des démocraties, c'est la constitution d'un espace public de discussion (…). Dans cet espace public s'affrontent des courants d'opinion (…).Une démocratie n'est pas un régime politique sans conflits, mais un régime dans lequel les conflits sont ouverts et en outre négociables (…).Sous ce régime, le conflit n'est pas un accident, ni une maladie, ni un malheur; il est l'expression du caractère non décidable de façon scientifique ou dogmatique du bien public. La discussion politique est sans conclusion, bien qu'elle ne soit pas sans décision".

  11. To be sure, determining which ethical theory fits best with NST is complex. With regard to consequentialism, the ethics of nanotechnology calls for an enlarged version of the theory, extended to the consideration of unintended effects and not restricted to the calculus of risk versus benefits. Since the consequences of the cultural amplifications of our actions in collective networks are also to be taken in account, such an enlarged version of consequentialism should perhaps be complemented by an ethics of virtue, providing that it is detached from the exclusive focus on the ‘moral quality’ of individual agents. As a relational way of practicing ethics focused on particular—but not purely individual—situations, the ethics of care is also interesting. However, the limit of all these classical meta-ethics frameworks is that they focus mainly on research subjects, while ignoring the role of objects. Yet nano-objects are not value-free. They embody meanings and valuations that need to be made explicit, and then articulated and subjected to collective moral evaluation (Bensaude-Vincent 2013). The value-laden dimension of objects is the main focus of “value-sensitive design” (Friedman et al. 2006) and “design ethics” (Verbeek 2006). But these attempts often fall short in addressing explicitly normative questions such as the choice between multiples competing values and their hierarchization (Manders-Huits 2011). Moreover, they focus mainly on applications and use in everyday life, while the nano-objects raise other questions such as the instrumental valuation of nature or the focus on performance, which are not reducible to their applications. Finally, the ethics of nanotechnology should closely articulate the descriptive analysis of the valuations underlying research projects and objects design with the help of an epistemological analysis of these practices and of the mode of existence of nano-objects, and their normative evaluation, with the help of ethical theories and public debate (Dewey 1939).

References

  • Barnes, B., Dolby, R.: The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint. Archies européennes de sociologie, XI 1, 3–25 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C., Petitjean, P.: Science and French Colonial Policy. Creation of the ORSTOM: from the popular front to the Liberation via Vichy, 1936–1947. In: Shinn, T., Spaapen, J., Krishna, V.V. (eds.) Science and Technology in a Developing World (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 1995), pp. 129–178. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S.: Metaphors in nanomedicine: the case of targeted drug delivery. NanoEthics. 8, 1–17 (2013)

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A., Schwarz, A.: Matters of interest: the objects of research in science and technoscience. J. Gen. Philos. Sci. 42, 365–383 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B.: Which focus for an ethics in nanotechnology laboratories? In: Van Der Burg, S., Swierstra, T. (eds.) Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, pp. 21–36. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M.: Des différentes formes de démocratie technique, Annales des Mines. 1, 63–73 (1998)

  • Callon, M., Courtial, J., Laville, F.: Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics 22(1), 153–203 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Rabeharisoa, V.: The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Sci. Technol. Human Values 33(2), 230–261 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M., Nordmann, A.: Science in the context of application: methodological change, conceptual transformation, cultural reorientation. Boston Stud. Philos. Sci. 274, 1–7 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.: Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 38(3), 268–295 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.M.: The sociology of scientific knowledge: studies of contemporary science. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 9, 265–285 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J.: Theory of valuation. International encyclopedia of unified science, vol. 4, pp. 1–67. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1939)

  • Drexler, K.E.: Engines of Creation. The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Anchor, Garden City (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission: Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, COM 338, 1–28 (2004)

  • Endo, M.: Interview with Morinobu Endo. In: Bensaude-Vincent, B. (ed.) Sciences: histoire orale (2002). https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article8

  • Epstein, S.: Impure Science. AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press, Berkeley (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission: Recommendation of 7 February 2008 on concerning best practices for responsible research in nanosciences and nanotechnologies, 2008/345/CE (2008)

  • European Commission: Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial, 2011/696/EU (2011)

  • Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P.H., Borning, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. Hum. Comput. Interact. Manag. Inf. Syst. Found.5, 348–372 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E., Reed, D.L.: Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 25(3), 88–106 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P.: The pyramid and the Ring: the rise of ontological indifference. Lecture at the Centre for the Humanities of the University of Utrecht, 2010, November 11 (2010)

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., Trow, M.: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Granjou, C., Barbier, M.: Métamorphoses de l’expertise. Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., Llored, J.P.: Mereologies as the grammars of chemical discourses. Found. Chem. 13(1), 63–76 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottois, G.: Le signe et la technique. La philosophie à l’épreuve de la technique. Aubier, Paris (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/TS 27687: Nanotechnologies—Terminology and definitions for nano-objects—Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate (2008)

  • Jasanoff, S.: The Fifth Branch. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S.: Science, politics and the renegotiation of expertise at EPA. Osiris 7, 192–217 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A.: The end of pure science: science policy from bayh-dole to the NNI. In: Baird, D., Nordmann, A., Schummer, J. (eds.) Discovering the Nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Research Center: Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterials for Regulatory Purposes. JRC, Ispra (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H.: The imperative of responsibility: In search of ethics for the technological age. Trans. of Das Prinzip Verantwortung by Hans Jonas and David Herr (1979), University of Chicago Press (1984)

  • Jones R.: Hollow Center: nanotechnology is a discipline in the throes of an existential crisis. Nature 440, 995 (2006). http://Softmachines.org

  • Kearnes, M., Rip, A.: The Emerging Governance Landscape of Nanotechnology. Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie, Jenseits von Regulierung (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelty, C.: Beyond implications and applications: the story of ‘safety by design’. Nanoethics 3(2), 79–96 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacour, S.: Définir les nanomatériaux: une controverse scientifique ou normative?, Bulletin de veille scientifique de l’ANSES n°16, décembre 2011, p. 38 et s (2011)

  • Lacour, S.: L’impossible définition des substances à l’état nanoparticulaire. Éléments d’analyse du décret n° 2012-232 du 17 février 2012 relatif à la déclaration annuelle des substances à l’état nanoparticulaire pris en application de l’article L. 523-4 du Code de l’environnement, Revue Environnement et Développement Durable, Lexis Nexis, n° 5, étude 8 (2012)

  • Latour, B.: Joliot: l‘Histoire et la Physique Mélées. In: Serres, M. (ed.) Eléments d‘histoire des sciences, pp. 493–513. Bordas, Paris (1989). (sous la direction de)

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B.: We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1993b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B.: Petite réflexion sur le culte moderne des dieux faitiches. Les empêcheurs de penser en rond, Paris (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., Woolgar, S.: Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Sage, Beverly Hills (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B.: Les politiques des nanotechnologies. Charles Léopold Mayer, Paris (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B.: Responsible agencements: constructing markets for nanotechnology through the European regulation. Nanotech. Law Bus. 9, 267 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B.: Les espaces politiques des substances chimiques. Définir des nanomatériaux internationaux, européens et français. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 7(1), 195–221 (2013a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, B.: Nanomaterials in Political Life: In the Democracies of Nanotechnology. In Brayner, R., Fiévet, F., Coradin, T. (eds.) Nanomaterials: A Danger or a Promise? A Chemical and Biological Perspective, pp. 379–399. London, Springer (2013b)

  • Loeve, S.: About a definition of nanotechnology: How to articulate nano and technology? HYLE Int. J. Philos. Chem. 16(1), 3–18 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, A.: Don’t define nanomaterials. Nature 475, 31 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, E., Kelty, C.: Responsibility and nanotechnology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40(3), 405–432 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manders-Huits, N.: What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(2), 271–287 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méheust, B.: La Politique de l’oxymore. Comment ceux qui nous gouvernent nous masquent la réalité du monde, La Découverte (2009)

  • Merton, R.K.: The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C.: Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Human Values 26, 478–500 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M.: Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural science. Soc. Res. 36(1), 22–52 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A.: Metachemistry. In: Llored, J.-P. (ed.) The Philosophy of Chemistry: Practices, Methodologies, and Concepts, pp. 725–743. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D.: Pour une histoire sociale et culturelle des sciences. Nouvelles définitions, nouveaux objets, nouvelles pratiques. Histoire et Sociologie des Sciences 3, 487–522 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D.: Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation. INRA Editions, Paris (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H.: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy, and Other Essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Randles, S., Youtie, J., Guston, D., Harthorn, B., Newfield, C., Shapira, P., Wickson, F., Rip, A., Von Schomberg, R., Pidgeon, N.: A transatlantic conversation on responsible innovation and responsible governance. In: Van Lente, H., Coenen, C., Fleischer, T., Konrad, K., Krabbenborg, L., Milburn, C., Thoreau, F., Züldorf, T.B. (eds.) Little by Little. Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, pp. 169–179. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Roco, M.: Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 153–191 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P.: Lectures I: Autour du politique. Seuil, Paris (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A.: Talk on responsible innovation. Franco-British workshop on Responsible Innovation: From concepts to practice, 23–24 May 2011, Residence of the French Ambassador, London (2011a)

  • Rip, A. Responsible innovation—responsible governance position statement, Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies 2011 Conference, Tempe AZ (2011b)

  • Roco, M.: Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5(9), 181–189 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., Shapira, P.: Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. J. Nanopart. Res. 13(9), 3557–3590 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J.: Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. Techné Res. Philos. Technol. 8(2), 56–87 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEI: Societal and ethical issues in nanotechnology, poster (2004). http://sei.nnin.org/sei_posters.html

  • Stamm, H.: Risk factors: nanomaterials should be defined. Nature 476, 399 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stengers, I.: Une autre science est possible. Manifeste pour un ralentissement des sciences, Les empêcheurs de penser en rond, Paris (2013)

  • Theis T., Parr D., Binks P., Ying J., Drexler K.E., Shepers E., Mullis K., Bai C., Boland J.J., Langer R., Dobson P., Rao C.N.R., Ferrari M.: nan‘otechnol‘ogy n., Nat. Nanotechnol. 1(1), 8–10 (2006). www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v1/n1/full/nnano.2006.77.html

  • Verbeek, P.P.: Materializing morality design ethics and technological mediation. Sci. Technol. Human Values 31(3), 361–380 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinck, D.: Sciences et société. Sociologie du travail scientifique. Armand Colin, Paris (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, F., Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K.L.: Who or What is ‘the public’? Nat. Nanotechnol. 5(11), 757–758 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.: “Moral Luck” Moral Luck, pp. 20–39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, N.: Mediating machines. Sci. Context 2, 77–113 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A.N.: The concept of nature. Tarner Lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004/1920)

  • Wood, S., Geldart, A., Jones, R.: Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20(1), 13–27 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B.: Knowledges in context. Sci. Technol. Human Values 16(1), 111–121 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J.: Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISP, CNRS - ENS Cachan - Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Cachan, France

    Stéphanie Lacour

  2. COSTECH, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France

    Sacha Loeve

  3. CSI, Mines ParisTech, Paris, France

    Brice Laurent

  4. ISP, CNRS - ENS Cachan - Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La défense, Cachan, France

    Virginie Albe

  5. ESIEE, Noisy le Grand, France

    Aurélie Delemarle

  6. IEF, CNRS, Université Paris Sud, Orsay, France

    Bernard Bartenlian

  7. U955 – Équipe 04 INSERM, Paris, France

    Sophie Lanone

Authors
  1. Stéphanie Lacour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sacha Loeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brice Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Virginie Albe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aurélie Delemarle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bernard Bartenlian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sophie Lanone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphanie Lacour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacour, S., Loeve, S., Laurent, B. et al. Deliberating responsibility: a collective contribution by the C’Nano IdF Nanoscience & Society Office. Found Chem 17, 225–245 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-015-9234-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-015-9234-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation