This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Boiko, P., R. Morrill, J. Flynn, E. Faustman, G. van Belle, and G. Omenn (1996), ‘Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons production sites’, Risk Analysis 16,2: 237–249.
Busenberg, G. (1999), ‘Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy’, Policy Sciences 32: 1–11.
Dewey, J. (1927), The Public and Its Problems, Athens: Swallow Press.
Douglas, H. (2000), ‘Inductive risk and values in science’, Philosophy of Science 67: 559–79.
Douglas, H. (2002), ‘The moral responsibilities of scientists: Tensions between autonomy and responsibility’, American Philosophical Quarterly 40,1: 59–68.
Douglas, H. (2004a), ‘The irreducible complexity of objectivity’, Synthese 138,3, 453–73.
Douglas, H. (2004b), ‘Border skirmishes between science and policy: Autonomy, responsibility, and values’, in G. Machamer and P. Wolters (eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, forthcoming.
Fiorino, D. (1990), ‘Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 15,2: 226–43.
Fischer, F. (1993), ‘Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases’, Policy Sciences 26: 165–87.
Fischer, F. (2000), Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, Durham: Duke University Press.
Futrell, R. (2003), ‘Technical adversarialism and participatory collaboration in the U.S. chemical weapons disposal program’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 28,4: 451–82.
Gerber, M. (1997), On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Guston, D. (1999), ‘Evaluating the First US Consensus Conference: The impact of the citizen’s panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 24,4: 451–82.
Irwin, A. (1995), Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
Joss, S. (1998), ‘Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish parliament and Danish public debate’, Science and Public Policy 25,1: 2–22.
Joss, S. and J. Durant (eds), (1995), Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London: Science Museum.
Kaplan, L. (2000), ‘Public participation in nuclear facility decisions’, in D.L. Kleinman (ed.), Science, Technology, and Democracy, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 67–83.
Kinney, A. and T. Leschine (2002), ‘A procedural evaluation of an analytic-deliberative process: The Columbia River comprehensive impact assessment’, Risk Analysis 22,1: 83–100.
Kuhn, T. (1977), ‘Objectivity, value, and theory choice’, in T. Kuhn (ed.), The Essential Tension, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 320–39.
Lacey, H. (1999), Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding, New York: Routledge.
Laird, F. (1993), ‘Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision-making’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 18: 341–61.
Longino, H. (1996), ‘Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy’, in L. Hankinson-Nelson and J. Nelson (eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 39–58.
National Research Council (1983), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
O’Connor, J. (1993), ‘The promise of environmental democracy’, in R. Hofrichter (ed.), Toxic Struggles, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, pp. 47–57.
Ozawa, C. (1991), Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making, Boulder: Westview Press.
Renn, O. (1999), ‘Model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management’, Environmental Science and Technology 33,18: 3049–55.
Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds), (1994), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Boston: Kluwer.
Rooney, P. (1992), ‘On values in science: Is the epistemic/non-epistemic distinction useful?’, in D. Hull, M. Forbes and K. Okruhlik (eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 3–22.
Rosenstock, L. and L. Lee (2002), ‘Attacks on science: The risks to evidence-based policy’, American Journal of Public Health 92,1: 14–18.
Rowe, G. and L. Frewer (2000), ‘Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 25,1: 3–29.
Sclove, R.E. (1995), Democracy and Technology, New York: Guilford.
Sclove, R.E. (2000), ‘Town meetings on technology: Consensus conferences as democratic participation’, in D. Kleinman (ed.), Science, Technology, and Democracy, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 33–48.
Stern, P.C. and H. Fineberg (eds), (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Wachelder, J. (2003), ‘Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 28,2: 244–73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the Public Into Science. In: Maasen, S., Weingart, P. (eds) Democratization of Expertise?. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3754-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3754-6_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3753-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3754-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)