Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies – Engaging Differently?

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

Abstract

The idea of conducting upstream public engagement over emerging technologies has been gaining popularity in Europe and North America, with nanotechnologies seen as a test case for this. For many of its advocates, upstream engagement is about a re-conceptualisation of the science–society relationship in which a variety of ‘publics’ are brought together with stakeholders and scientists early in the Research and Development process to co-develop technological trajectories. However, the concept, aims and processes of upstream engagement remain ill-defined, are often misunderstood, and have undergone little critical analysis. This special issue of NanoEthics, entitled ‘Engaging with Nanotechnologies–Engaging Differently?’ takes a multi-nation, multi-case approach to explore this idea, drawing on work represented by four articles from the US and Europe, from ethnographic work in the nanotechnology lab through to analysis of a Citizens’ Jury and other attempts to move public debate ‘upstream’. An overall message from the papers is that without adequate critique ‘upstream engagement’ might end up re-producing out-dated forms of science communication or being rejected as a failed concept before it has even matured.

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. Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16:79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33:2685–2692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dryzek J (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pidgeon NF (1998) Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 59:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  8. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and society 3rd report, HL paper 38. HMSO, London

  9. Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decision Analysis 2(1):4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. Joss S (1998) Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Sci Public Policy 25:2–22

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mohr A (2003) A new policy-making instrument? The first Australian Consensus Conference. Ph.D. Thesis. School of Humanities, Griffith University, Brisbane

  14. Stern PC, Fineberg HC (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. US National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stirling A (2005) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalisation and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London, pp 218–231

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pidgeon NF, Hood C, Jones D, Turner B, Gibson R (1992). Risk perception. In: Risk – analysis, perception and management: report of a Royal Society study group. The Royal Society, London, pp 89–134

  17. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, 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 Anal 25:467–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. RS/RAEng (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business 2(3):167–178

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pidgeon NF, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk Soc 9:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. HM Government (2005) Response to the royal society and royal academy of engineering report: nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Department of Trade and Industry, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kleinman D, Powell M (2005) Report on the Madison area consensus conference on nanotechnology. University of Wisconsin Madison, Department of Rural Sociology. Available at http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/research/Nano/nanoreport42805.pdf

  26. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Developments in public participation in nanotechnology: towards sustainability. J Clean Prod (in press)

  27. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohr A (2007) Against the stream. Moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream. In: Flynn RP, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptability of new technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon NF (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16:345–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hill S (1998) The tragedy of technology. Pluto Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  34. Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (2005) Science and citizens: globalisation and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported through grants from the Leverhulme Trust to the Program on Understanding Risk, the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant No. 0531184) to the Centre for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara and through the School of Psychology, Cardiff University. The authors would like to thank Dave Guston, Brian Wynne and the journal editors for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK

    Tee Rogers-Hayden & Nick Pidgeon

  2. Institute for Science and Society, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Alison Mohr

Authors
  1. Tee Rogers-Hayden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison Mohr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tee Rogers-Hayden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A. & Pidgeon, N. Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies – Engaging Differently?. Nanoethics 1, 123–130 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0013-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0013-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation