NanoEthics 3 (1):61-72 (2009)
AbstractPublic participation is a prominent issue in the nanoethics literature. This paper analyses the emerging awareness of nanoscience and nanotechnology (nano S&T) in the Norwegian public sphere, as evidenced by newspaper coverage. In particular, attention is on representations of nano S&T and their relation to public participation. Three dominant representations are found; nano S&T as positive, nano S&T as important for the future and nano S&T as under control. It is argued that the prominence of these representations is unfortunate because they can discourage public participation. The paper concludes by pointing to some broader questions about public participation as an instrument for governance of nano S&T
Similar books and articles
Southern Roles in Global Nanotechnology Innovation: Perspectives From Thailand and Australia. [REVIEW]Donald C. Maclurcan - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (2):137-156.
Reading Nano: The Public Interest in Nanotechnology as Reflected in Purchase Patterns of Books.Joachim Schummer - manuscript
Centre and Periphery of Nano—A Norwegian Context.Kåre Nolde Nielsen, Trond Grønli Åm & Rune Nydal - 2011 - NanoEthics 5 (1):87-98.
Introducing Standards of Care in the Commercialization of Nanotechnology.Vivian Weil - 2006 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):205-213.
YUTPA as a Design Tool for Public Participation.Maurice Berix - 2012 - AI and Society 27 (1):165-172.
Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology?Craig Cormick - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Arendt, Habermas and Facebook: Participation and Discourse in Cyber Public Spheres.Asaf Bar-Tura - 2010 - Humanities and Technology Review 29:1-25.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Emerging Technologies and Ethics: A Race-to-the-Bottom or the Top? [REVIEW]Raul Gouvea, Jonathan D. Linton, Manuel Montoya & Steven T. Walsh - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 109 (4):553-567.
A Computer-Aided Affective Content Analysis of Nanotechnology Newspaper Articles.Robert Davis - 2011 - NanoEthics 5 (3):319-334.
Between National Pride and the Scientific Success of “Others”: The Case of Polish Press Coverage of Nanotechnology, 2004–2009.Szczepan Lemańczyk - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (2):101-115.
Protection Motivation and Communication Through Nanofood Labels: Improving Predictive Capabilities of Attitudes and Purchase Intentions Toward Nanofoods.Shirley S. Ho, Agnes S. F. Chuah & Christopher L. Cummings - 2018 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 43 (5):888-916.
Content Analysis of Nano-news Published Between 2011 and 2018 in Turkish Newspapers.Şeyma Çalık, Ayşe Koç, Tuba Şenel Zor, Erhan Zor & Oktay Aslan - 2021 - NanoEthics 15 (2):117-132.
References found in this work
Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?Phil Macnaghten, , Matthew B. Kearnes & Brian Wynne - 2005 - Science Communication 27 (2):268-291.
On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature. [REVIEW]Kamilla Kjølberg & Fern Wickson - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):89-104.
Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations.Graeme A. Hodge & Diana M. Bowman - 2007 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 27 (2):118-132.