Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Enrol Citizens in the Governance of Nanotechnology?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governing Future Technologies

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 27))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, we use the term nanotechnology although this singular form covers a wide spectrum of different technologies.

  2. 2.

    French National Institute for Agricultural Research.

  3. 3.

    See http://www.cipast.org.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. (2000), ‘Making the Active Scientific Citizen’, Paper presented at the 4S/EASST conference, September 28–30, in Vienna, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondiaux, L. and Y. Sintomer (2002), ‘L’impératif délibératif’, Politix 15: 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and E. Mikkelsen (1990), No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukaemia, and Community Action, Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999), ‘The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge’, Science, Technology and Society 4: 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe (2001), Agir Dans un Monde Incertain: Essai sur la Démocratie Technique, Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, D. J. (1990), ‘Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: a Survey of Institutional Mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 15: 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, R. (2006), ‘Nanotechnology: The Visible and the Invisible’, Science as Culture 15: 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2006), ‘Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance’, Public Administration Review (Special Issue): 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavelin, K., R. Wilson, and R. Doubleday (2007), Democratic technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG): Involve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2005), ‘Nanotechnology. A New Field of Ethical Inquiry?’, Science and Engineering Ethics 11:187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. M. (2004), ‘Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics’, Bioethics 18: 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2006), ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance’, Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (eds.), (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M., P. Macnaghten, and J. Wilsdon, (2006a), Governing at the Nanoscale – People, Policies and Emerging Technologies, London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M., and P. Macnaghten (2006), ‘(Re)Imagining Nanotechnology’, Science as Culture 15: 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmann, D. L. (ed.), (2000), Science, Technology, and Democracy, Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds.), (2007), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E. (ed.), (1995), Technoscientific Imaginaries: Conversations, Profiles and Memoirs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, A. D. (2006), Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006), ‘Folk Theories of Nanotechnologies’, Science as Culture 15: 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Th. Misa and I. Schot (1995), Managing Technology in Society: the Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London and New York: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer (2005), ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 30: 251–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, J. L., C. Rippberger, and C. Rehmann-Sutter (2004), ‘Non-Professionals’ Evaluations of Gene Therapy Ethics’, Social Science & Medicine 58: 1415–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. L. (1983), Impact Management and Sustainable Resource Management, Harlow, UK: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society (1985), Public Understanding of Science, The Royal Society Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (2006), ‘Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures’, Science as Culture 15: 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science-Society Interface, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Alain Kaufmann, Professor Dr. Claude Joseph, Dr. Catherine El-Bez & Dr. Marc Audétat

Authors
  1. Alain Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Dr. Claude Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Catherine El-Bez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dr. Marc Audétat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alain Kaufmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Mario Kaiser

  2. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Monika Kurath

  3. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Sabine Maasen

  4. Inst. Medizin- und, Universität Lübeck, Königstr. 42, Lübeck, 23552, Germany

    Christoph Rehmann-Sutter

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation