Avoiding empty rhetoric: Engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies
Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96 (2009)
Abstract
Despite the amount of public investment in nanotechnology ventures in the developed world, research shows that there is little public awareness about nanotechnology, and public knowledge is very limited. This is concerning given that nanotechnology has been heralded as ‘revolutionising’ the way we live. In this paper, we articulate why public engagement in debates about nanotechnology is important, drawing on literature on public engagement and science policy debate and deliberation about public policy development. We also explore the significance of timing in engaging the public, and we make some suggestions concerning how to effectively engage publics. Our conclusions indicate the significance of scientific researchers, policy makers and representative consumer groupings in public reasoning towards a better public policy framework for debate about technological development.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y
My notes
Similar books and articles
Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations.Brice Laurent - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):649-666.
Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology?Craig Cormick - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement.Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler - 2010 - Minerva 48 (3):219-238.
On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
Making public bioethics sufficiently public: The legitimacy and authority of bioethics commissions.Summer Johnson - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (2):143-152.
Deliberating risks under uncertainty: Experience, trust, and attitudes in a swiss nanotechnology stakeholder discussion group.Regula Valérie Burri - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):143-154.
A question of balance or blind faith?: Scientists' and science policymakers' representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies. [REVIEW]Alan Petersen & Alison Anderson - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (3):243-256.
Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct: Commentary on: “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations”. [REVIEW]Alison Mohr - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):667-672.
Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnologies – engaging differently? [REVIEW]Tee Rogers-Hayden, Alison Mohr & Nick Pidgeon - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):123-130.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
45 (#261,419)
6 months
4 (#182,451)
2009-01-28
Downloads
45 (#261,419)
6 months
4 (#182,451)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
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.
Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Assembling Upstream Engagement: the Case of the Portuguese Deliberative Forum on Nanotechnologies.António Carvalho & João Arriscado Nunes - 2018 - NanoEthics 12 (2):99-113.
Piecing together the elephant: Public engagement on nanotechnology challenges.Craig Cormick - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):439-442.
References found in this work
Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development.Alan Irwin - 1995 - Routledge.
Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology.Alan Irwin & Brian Wynne (eds.) - 1996 - Cambridge University Press.
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.