NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142 (2007)
AbstractThe 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.
Similar books and articles
Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. [REVIEW]Charles Thorpe - 2010 - Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
Avoiding the trust deficit: Public engagement, values, the precautionary principle and the future of nanotechnology. [REVIEW]Margaret Stebbing - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):37-48.
Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology?Craig Cormick - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Public engagement as means of restoring trust in science? Hitting the notes, but missing the music.Brian E. Wynne - 2006 - .
Hype and Public Trust in Science.Zubin Master & David B. Resnik - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):321-335.
Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes: Commentary on: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”.Brian Wynne - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800.
Avoiding empty rhetoric: Engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Logic of Choice or Logic of Care? Uncertainty, Technological Mediation and Responsible Innovation.Christopher Groves - 2015 - NanoEthics 9 (3):321-333.
Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK.Chris Groves, Lori Frater, Robert Lee & Elen Stokes - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 101 (4):525-552.
How can we know a self-driving car is safe?Jack Stilgoe - 2021 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (4):635-647.
Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance.L. J. Frewer, A. R. H. Fischer & N. Gupta - 2015 - NanoEthics 9 (2):93-108.
References found in this work
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown - 1993 - Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Seyla Benhabib (ed.) - 1996 - Princeton University Press.
Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science.John S. Dryzek - 1990 - Cambridge University Press.