Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium

  • Lieve Goorden
  • Michiel van Oudheusden
  • Johan Evers
  • Marian Deblonde
Part of the The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 1)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crow, M., and D. Sarewitz. 2000. Nanotechnology and Societal Transformation, Paper presented at the National Science and Technology Council Workshop on Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, September 28–29, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. Deblonde, M., Barriat, V., Warrant F., Goorden, L., and G. Valenduc. 2005. Science and Precaution in Interactive Risk Evaluation: SPIRE, Final Report. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy, p. 112.Google Scholar
  3. Dupuy, J. 2004. Complexity and Uncertainty: A Prudential Approach to Nanotechnology. A Contribution to the Work in Progress of the ‘Foresighting the New Technology Wave’ High-Level Expert Group, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. EC, Special Eurobarometer. 2005. Social Values, Science and Technology. June, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. Funtowicz, S., and J. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the Post-normal Age. Futures 25(7): 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, E., and R.L. Mahajan. 2006. Contradictory Intent? US Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development. Science and Public Policy 33(1): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garreau, J. 2005. Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies–and What It Means to Be Human. United States: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Goorden, L. 2004. Innovation Policy and Technology Assessment in Flanders. Study Commissioned by the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
  9. Grunwald, A. 2006. Nanotechnologie als Chiffre der Zukunft. In A. Nordmann, J. Schummer, and A. Schwarz, Hrsg, eds., Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, S. 49–80.Google Scholar
  10. Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society. 24 (1-2): 93–109.Google Scholar
  11. Hanssen, L., and R. van Est. 2004. De dubbele boodschap van nanotechnologie. Een onderzoek naar opkomende publiekspercepties, Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.Google Scholar
  12. Hosper, G.J. 2002. Clusterbeleid tussen trend en traditie. Tijdschrift voor Wetenschap, Technologie en Samenleving 10(4): 152–156.Google Scholar
  13. Hullmann, A. 2006. The Economic Development of Nanotechnology: An Indicators Based Analysis. European Comission, Brussels, November 28th 2006. http://cordis.europa.eu./nanotechnology. Accessed November 1st, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Janich, P. 2006. Wissenschaftstheorie der Nanotechnologie. In A. Nordmann, J. Schummer, and A.S. Schwarz, eds., Nanotechnologien im Kontext (pp.1–32). Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  15. Jelsma, J., and A. Rip. 1995. Biotechnologie in Bedrijf: Een bijdrage van Constructief Technology Assessment aan biotechnologisch innoveren, Rathenau Instituut.Google Scholar
  16. Kahan, D.M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., and G.L. Cohen. 2007. Affect, Values, and Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Larosse, J. 2004. Do Small Countries Have (Dis)advantages? The Rise of MAP’s as Instruments for Strategic Innovation Policy. Brussels: The Case of Flanders, IWT.Google Scholar
  19. Lösch, A. 2006. Anticipating the Future of Nanotechnology: Some thoughts on the Boundaries of Sociotechnological Visions. Department of Sociology, Technical University Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  20. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordmann, A. 2002. Converging Technologies: Shaping the Future of European Societies. European Commission, Brussels. http://www.ntnu.no/2020/pdf/final_report_en.pdf. Accessed November 1st, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Nordmann, A. 2007. Design Choices in the Nanoworld: A Space Odyssey. Paper presented at the UCSIA Conference, “Nano-researchers facing choices,” University of Antwerp, October 3, 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Renn, O., and M.C. Roco. 2006. White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance. White paper no. 2, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.Google Scholar
  24. Rip, A. 2005. Technology Assessment as Part of the Co-Evolution of Nanotechnology and Society: The Thrust of the TA Program in NanoNed. Paper contributed to the Conference on “Nanotechnology in Science, Economy and Society,” Marburg.Google Scholar
  25. Rip, A., Misa, T., and J. Schot., eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge, eds. 2003. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology–Improving Benefits to Humanity. NSET and NSF. Arlington, Virginia: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Rodemeyer, M., Sarewitz, D., and J. Wilsdon. 2005. The Future of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.Google Scholar
  29. Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54(2/3): 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sloterdijk, P. 2006. Het Kristalpaleis, Een filosofie van de globalisering. Amsterdam: Sun.Google Scholar
  31. Smits, R., and A. Leyten. 1991. Technology Assessment: waakhond of speurhond (Technology assessment: watchdog or tracker? Towards an integral technology policy.’) Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Kerckebosch, Zeist.Google Scholar
  32. Stirling, A. 2006. From Science and Society to Science in Society: Towards a Framework for ‘Co-operative Research,’ Brussels. STOA (Scientific Technology Options Assessment). 2006. Technology Assessment on Converging Technologies. Report commissioned by the European Parliament.Google Scholar
  33. Toumey, C. 2004. Narratives for Nanotech: Anticipating Public Reactions to Nanotechnology. Techné 8(2): 88–116.Google Scholar
  34. Van Oudheusden et al., Widening the Circle of Nano-Research:. A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flemish Society. Paper submitted to and presented at the International Conference on Nanotechnology in San Francisco on November 2, 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Von Schomberg, R. 2002. The Erosion of Our Value Spheres: The Ways in Which Society Copes with Scientific, Moral and Ethical Uncertainty. In R. von Schomberg and K. Baynes, eds., Discourse and Democracy: On Habermas’ ‘Between Facts and Norms.’ Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., and J. Stilgoe. 2005. The Public Value of Science. Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  37. Whitesides, G.M. 2003. Science and Education for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. In M.C. Roco and W.S. Bainbridge, eds., Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology—Improving Benefits to Humanity. NSET and NSF. Arlington Virginia: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lieve Goorden
    • 1
  • Michiel van Oudheusden
  • Johan Evers
  • Marian Deblonde
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations