Abstract
According to the literature produced either by STS scholars or by many public agencies, nanotechnology1 offers a unique opportunity for developing socially robust technological innovations within a sustainable future. In this context, learning from the GMOs controversy and moving toward an “upstream engagement” becomes one of the master narratives of public policies. This narrative is linked to the critique addressed to the approach of the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) taken by The Royal Society in the UK (The Royal Society 1985). PUS was an exemplary response from the scientific institutions to what was interpreted as a growing “gap” between science and society that started to be documented by surveys and reports as from the 80s.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this chapter, we use the term nanotechnology although this singular form covers a wide spectrum of different technologies.
- 2.
French National Institute for Agricultural Research.
- 3.
References
Arnall, A. and D. Parr (2005), ‘Moving the Nanoscience and Technology (NST) Debate forwards: Short-Term Impacts, Long Term Uncertainty and the Social Constitution’, Technology in Society 27: 23–38.
Barry, A. (2000), ‘Making the Active Scientific Citizen’, Paper presented at the 4S/EASST conference, September 28–30, in Vienna, Austria.
Bennett, I. and D. Sarewitz (2006), ‘Too Little, too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States’, Science as Culture 15: 309–325.
Blondiaux, L. and Y. Sintomer (2002), ‘L’impératif délibératif’, Politix 15: 17–35.
Brown, P. and E. Mikkelsen (1990), No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukaemia, and Community Action, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Callon, M. (1999), ‘The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge’, Science, Technology and Society 4: 81–94.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe (2001), Agir Dans un Monde Incertain: Essai sur la Démocratie Technique, Paris: Seuil.
CIPAST – Citizen Participation in Science and Technologies project, http://www.cipast.org.
Decker, M., and M. Ladikas (eds.), (2004), Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts, Berlin: Springer.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990), ‘Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: a Survey of Institutional Mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 15: 226–243.
Frodeman, R. (2006), ‘Nanotechnology: The Visible and the Invisible’, Science as Culture 15: 383–389.
Fukuyama, F. and F. Furger (2006), Beyond Bioethics: A Proposal for Modernizing the Regulation of Human Biotechnologies: Paul H. Nitze School Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University.
Fung, A. (2006), ‘Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance’, Public Administration Review (Special Issue): 66–75.
Gastil, J. and P. Levine (eds.), (2005), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint.
Gavelin, K., R. Wilson, and R. Doubleday (2007), Democratic technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG): Involve.
Grunwald, A. (2005), ‘Nanotechnology. A New Field of Ethical Inquiry?’, Science and Engineering Ethics 11:187–201.
Grunwald, A. (2008) ‘Converging Technologies for Human Enhancement. A New Wave Increasing the Contingency of the condition humana’ in G. Banse, A. Grunwald, I. Hronszky and G. Nelson (eds.) Assessing Societal Implications of Converging Technological Development. Berlin: Edition Sigma: 271–288.
Hedgecoe, A. M. (2004), ‘Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics’, Bioethics 18: 120–143.
Hennen, L., S. Bellucci, R. Berloznik, D. Cope, L. Cruz-Castro, T. Karapiperis, M. Ladikas, L. Klüver, S. Menéndez, J. Staman, S. Stephan, and T Szapiro (2004), ‘Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technology Assessment’ in M. Decker and M. Ladikas (eds.), Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts, Berlin: Springer: 57–85.
Irwin, A. (2006), ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance’, Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.
Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (eds.), (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joly, P.-B., M. Callon, L. Dianoux, J.-M. Fourniau, C. Gilbert, M.-A. Hermitte, C. Joseph, A. Kaufmann, R. Larrère, C. Neubauer, R. Schaer, and B. Fakir (2005), Démocratie Locale et Maîtrise Sociale des Nanotechnologies. Les publics Grenoblois Peuvent-ils Participer aux Choix Scientifiques et Techniques?: Mission pour la Métro- Communauté d’agglomération de Grenoble.
Joly, P.-B. and A. Kaufmann, (2008), ‘Lost in Translation ? The Need for "upstream engagement" with Nanotechnology on Trial’, Science as Culture, 17: 225–247.
Joss, S. and S. Belluci (eds.), (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives, London: Centre for the Study of Democracy and Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment.
Kaufmann, A. (2004), ‘Mapping the Human Genome at Généthon Laboratory: The French Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Politics of the Gene’ in H.-J. Rheinberger and J.-P. Gaudillièr (eds.), From Molecular Genetics to Genomics: The Mapping Cultures of Twentieth-Century Genetics, London and New York: Routledge: 129–157.
Kearnes, M., P. Macnaghten, and J. Wilsdon, (2006a), Governing at the Nanoscale – People, Policies and Emerging Technologies, London: Demos.
Kearnes, M., and P. Macnaghten (2006), ‘(Re)Imagining Nanotechnology’, Science as Culture 15: 279–290.
Kearnes, M., R. Grove-White, P. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne (2006b), ‘From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons From the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy’, Science as Culture 15: 291–307.
Kleinmann, D. L. (ed.), (2000), Science, Technology, and Democracy, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Klüver, L. (2003), ‘Project management: A Matter of Ethics and Firm Decision’ in S. Joss and S. Belluci (eds.), Participatory Technological Assessment: European Perspectives, London: Centre for the Study of Democracy and Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment: 179–208.
Leach, M., I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds.), (2007), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New York: Zed Books.
Levidow, L., (2007), ‘European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for a Biotech Policy?’, East Asian Science, Technology and Society (EASTS): an International Journal 1: 19–51.
Marcus, G. E. (ed.), (1995), Technoscientific Imaginaries: Conversations, Profiles and Memoirs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marris, C., P.-B. Joly and A. Rip, (2008), ‘Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an TA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 33: 77–100.
Maynard, A. D. (2006), Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
Nanologue (2006), The Future of Nanotechnology: We Need to Talk: Nanologue.net, http://www.nanologue.net.
Rayner, S. (2003), ‘Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise of Democracy in Public-Sector Decision Making’, Science and Public Policy 30: 163–170.
Rip, A. (2006), ‘Folk Theories of Nanotechnologies’, Science as Culture 15: 349–365.
Rip, A., Th. Misa and I. Schot (1995), Managing Technology in Society: the Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
Roco, M. C. and W. S. Bainbridge (eds.), (2002), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (NSF/DOC-sponsored report), Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Rose, N. and C. Novas (2005), ‘Biological Citizenship’ in A. Ong and S. J. Collier (eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, Oxford: Blackwell: 439–463.
Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer (2005), ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 30: 251–290.
Rudolf, F. (2003), ‘Deux Conceptions Divergentes de l’Expertise dans l’École de la Modernité Reflexive’, Cahiers Internationnaux de Sociologie CXIV(juin-juillet): 35–54.
Scully, J. L., C. Rippberger, and C. Rehmann-Sutter (2004), ‘Non-Professionals’ Evaluations of Gene Therapy Ethics’, Social Science & Medicine 58: 1415–1425.
Smith, G. L. (1983), Impact Management and Sustainable Resource Management, Harlow, UK: Longman.
Stirling, A. (2007), ‘Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology’ in M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne (eds.), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New York: Zed Books: 218–231.
The Royal Society (1985), Public Understanding of Science, The Royal Society Reports.
Williams, R. (2006), ‘Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures’, Science as Culture 15: 327–348.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaufmann, A., Joseph, C., El-Bez, C., Audétat, M. (2009). Why Enrol Citizens in the Governance of Nanotechnology?. In: Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds) Governing Future Technologies. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2834-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2834-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2833-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2834-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)