21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act. (2003). Public Law 108–153.
Barling, A., De Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlett, J., et al. (1999). The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology,
Beckwith, J., & Huang, F. (2005). Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science. Nature Biotechnology,
Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy,
Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability & citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences,
Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science,
Calleja-Lopez, A. & Fisher, E. (2009). Dialogues from the lab: Contemporary maieutics for socio-technical inquiry. Proceedings of society for philosophy & technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports,
Carolan, M. S. (2007). The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment. Rethinking how we assess and mitigate environmental threats. Organization Environment,
Chilvers, J. (2006). Engaging research councils? An evaluation of a Nanodialogues experiment in upstream public engagement. University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.bbsrc.com/web/FILES/Workshops/nanodialogues_evaluation.pdf
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies—studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science,
Conley, S. N. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. Science and Engineering Ethics,
Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication,
Davies, K. G., & Wolf-Phillips, J. (2006). Scientific citizenship and good governance: Implications for biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology,
Davis, M. (2006). Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion. Science and Engineering Ethics,
Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science,
Doorn, N. (2009). Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: Three perspectives. Science and Engineering Ethics,
Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology and Human Values,
Doorn, N., & Fahlquist, J. N. (2010). Responsibility in engineering: Toward a new role for engineering ethicists. Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
Doubleday, R. (2004). Political innovation. Corporate engagements in controversy over genetically modified foods (thesis). London: University College London.
Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science & Public Policy,
Editorial. (2004). Going public. Nature,
Editorial. (2009). Mind the gap. Nature,
European Commission. (2007). Energy research in the 7th framework programme. pp. 1–30. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/energy_research_fp7_en.pdf
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
European Commission. (2011a). Horizon 2020— The framework programme for research and innovation. communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. pp. 1–14.
European Commission. (2011b). Analysis Part I: investment and performance in R&D—Investing in the future. Innovation union competitiveness report 2011, pp. 41–154. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1.pdf
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nano medicine—Opinion No. 21. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research. Ogmius,
Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics,
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE), Chicago, Illinois, pp. 1–7.
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
Fisher, E., & Miller, C. (2009). Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369–381). Palo Alto: Academica Press.
Flipse, S.M., Van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Osseweijer, P. (2012). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘Part of the Job’ of researchers in industry. Science & Engineering Ethics. Online 25 Oct 2012, pp. 1–24.
Fortuin, F. T. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2007). The dynamics of the strategic network relations between corporate R&D and business: A longitudinal analysis in a large, technology-based multinational company. Journal on Chain & Network Science,
Fuller, S. (2009). The sociology of intellectual life. The career of the mind in and around academy. Coventry: University of Warwick.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures,
Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., et al. (2011). The 2010 Eurobaro meter on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology,
Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Gorman, M. E., Werhane, P. H., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics,
Grin, J., & Van der Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Groffman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., et al. (2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society,
Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science & Public Policy,
Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy,
Johnson, D. G. (2007). Ethics and technology ‘in the Making’: An essay on the challenge of nano ethics. Nanoethics,
Kaiser, M. (2012). Commentary: Looking for conflict and finding none? Public Understanding of Science,
Koivisto, R., Wessberg, N., Eerola, A., Ahlqvist, T., & Sirkku, K. (2009). Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. Nanoethics,
Macilwain, C. (2009). Genetics: Watching science at work. Nature,
Marris, C., Joly, P. B., & Rip, A. (2008). Interactive technology assessment in the real world. Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Policy Analysis,
Merton, R. K. (1938/1973). Science and the social order. In Storer, N.W. (Ed.) The sociology of science—Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 267–278.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. C. Shrader-Frechette (Ed.), Research ethics (pp. 153–168). Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany,
Nordman, A. (2007). If and Then: A critique of speculative nano ethics. Nanoethics,
Nordman, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology,
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science & Public Policy,
Nowotny, H., Schott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2′ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva,
Osseweijer, P. (2006). A short history of talking biotech: Fifteen years of iterative action research in institutionalising scientists’ engagement in public communication (thesis). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Overdevest, C., Huyck Orr, C., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review,
Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis,
Patra, D. (2011). Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. Nanoethics,
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. pp. 1–22.
Penders, B. (2008). From seeking healths to finding healths (thesis). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Penders, B., Verbakel, J. M. A., & Nelis, A. (2009a). The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
Penders, B., Vos, R., & Horstman, K. (2009b). Sensitization: Reciprocity and reflection in scientific practice. EMBO Reports,
Radstake, M., Van den Heuvel-Vromans, E., Jeucken, N., Dortmans, K., & Nelis, A. (2009). Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. EMBO Reports,
Randles, S. (2008). From nano-ethicswash to real-time regulation. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures,
Rip, A. (1981). Maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkeheid van chemici (thesis). Nootdorp: Drukkerij P.Th. v.d. Sande.
Rip, A. (2009). Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports,
Roelofsen, A., Boon, W. P. C., Kloet, R. R., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2011). Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what? Research Policy,
Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Moving engagement upstream? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science,
Russell, A. W., Vanclay, F. M., & Aslin, H. J. (2010). Technology assessment in social context: The case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal,
Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics,
Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports,
Shapin, S. (2008). Who are the scientists of today? Seed magazine 19. Available at http://seedmagazine.com/stateofscience/sos_feature_shapin_p1.html
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
Shatkin, J. A. (2008). Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Shelley Egan, C. (2010). The ambivalence of promising technology. Humanities, Social Sciences & Law,
Shove, E., & Rip, A. (2000). Users and unicorns: A discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science & Public Policy,
SIRC (Social Issues Research Council) in partnership with the royal society and the royal institution of Great Britain. (2001). Guidelines on science and health communication. Available at http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.pdf
. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports,
Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in techno scientific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photo acoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics,
Van der Burg, S. (2010). Taking the soft impacts of technology into account: Broadening the discourse in research practice. Social Epistemology,
Van Merkerk, R. O., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2008). Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing Morality—Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.
Verhoog, H. (1981). The responsibilities of scientists. Minerva,
Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & Beecroft R. (Eds.) Technickfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. pp. 39–62.
Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groffman, P. M., Schneider, L., et al. (2010). The engaged university: Providing a platform for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22–29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
Wolpert, L. (2007). Is cell science dangerous? Journal on Medical Ethics,
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics,
Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science,