Abstract
In this paper, in order to pursue the conversation begun by Fages and Albe (Cult Stud Sci Educ 2014), I highlight three conceptual contributions that could be made by familiarizing nanoscience and nanotechnology researchers and engineers with the work being carried out in science and technology studies and public understanding of science. First, it would allow them to become acquainted with less naive conceptualizations of the capacities of citizens. Second, it would help them to consider the nature and role of scientific expertise from richer, more nuanced and less stereotypical conceptual angles. Third and lastly, it would allow future researchers and engineers to become familiar with different models of interaction between citizens, scientists and decision.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., et al. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59, 977–984. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9.
Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology & Society, 4, 81–94. doi:10.1177/097172189900400106.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique (p. 357). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Dubochet, J. (2003). Teaching scientists to be citizens. European Molecular Biology Organization, 4, 330–332. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.embr810.
Editorial. (2013). Double vision. Nature, 497, 409.
Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20, 408–437. doi:10.1177/016224399502000402.
Fages, V., & Albe, V. (2014). Social issues in nanoscience and nanotechnology master’s degrees: The socio-political stakes of curricular choices. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11422-014-9591-2.
Gura, T. (2013). Amateur experts. Nature, 496, 259–260.
Haraway, D. (2000). How like a leaf: An interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. New York: Routledge.
Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., & Martin, B. (2008). Science, technology, and social movements. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 473–498). Cambridge, Londres: MIT Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320.
Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and the public reason. New York: Routledge.
Kent, J. (2003). Lay experts and the politics of breast implants. Public Understanding of science, 12, 403–421. doi:10.1177/0963662503124005.
Kleinman, D. L. (2000). Introduction. In D. L. Kleinman (Ed.), Science, technology, and democracy (pp. 1–12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Milot, P. (2003). La reconfiguration des universités selon l’OCDE. Économie du savoir et politique de l’innovation. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 3(148), 68–73. doi:10.3406/arss.2003.3323.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66, 745–758.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Petts, J. (2004). Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: Evidence from waste management. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 115–133. doi:10.1080/1366987042000158695.
Roqueplo, P. (1997). Entre savoir et décision, l’expertise scientifique. Versailles: Editions Quæ.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30, 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724.
Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 467–471. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017.
Suerdem, A., Bauer, M. W., Howard, S., & Ruby, L. (2013). PUS in turbulent times II—A shifting vocabulary that brokers inter-disciplinary knowledge. Public Understanding of science, 22, 2–15. doi:10.1177/0963662512471911.
Tachibana, M., Amato, P., Sparman, M., Gutierrez, N. M., Tippner-Hedges, R., Ma, H., et al. (2013). Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell, 153, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.006.
Trute, H.-H. (2005). Democratizing science: Expertise and participation in administrative decision-making. In H. Nowotny, D. Pestre, E. Schmidt-Assmann, H. Schulze-Fielitz, & H.-H. Trute (Eds.), The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, Science and the law (pp. 87–108). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-28886-4_5.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481. doi:10.1080/09505430120093586.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This review essay addresses issues raised in Fages and Albe’s article, Social issues in nanoscience and nanotechnology master’s degrees: the socio-political stakes of curricular choices.
Lead Editor: L. Carter
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pouliot, C. What students and researchers in nanoscience and nanotechnology should know about PUS and STS: a look at Fages and Albe’s viewpoint on social issues in nanoscience and nanotechnology Master’s degrees. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 10, 459–467 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9591-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9591-2