Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology

Upstream public engagement with new science and technology is considered important but challenging. This article shows how engagement events are embedded in broader institutional and cultural contexts. By studying two different cases of upstream engagement in nanotechnology, we demonstrate how existing institutional responsibilities and cultural repertoires contribute much to the productivity of actual engagement events. Insight into these wider world dynamics will help science communicators (or event organizers) foster reflection and deliberation among relevant actors about whether and how upstream public engagement can have an impact on the governance of new science and technology.

[1]  J. Gregory,et al.  Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science , 2010 .

[2]  L. Krabbenborg.  Involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: Creating productive spaces for interaction , 2013 .

[3]  A. Parandian.  Constructive TA of Newly Emerging Technologies Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events , 2012 .

[4]  Arie Rip,et al.  Antagonistic Patterns and New Technologies , 1998 .

[5]  Robert Doubleday,et al.  Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology , 2007 .

[6]  J. Chilvers.  Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology , 2013 .

[7]  R. V. Schomberg.  Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2011 .

[8]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[9]  Maria Powell,et al.  Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology , 2008 .

[10]  B. Wynne,et al.  Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs , 2001, Science as culture.

[11]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations , 2015 .

[12]  Lotte Krabbenborg,et al.  DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: an Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry , 2013 .

[13]  C. Mitcham,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within , 2006 .

[14]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 1995 .

[15]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Locating Scientific Citizenship: The Institutional Contexts and Cultures of Public Engagement , 2010 .

[16]  Jeroen van den Hoven,et al.  Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications , 2015 .

[17]  A. Irwin.  From deficit to democracy (re-visited) , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[18]  L. Krabbenborg.  The potential of national public engagement exercises: Evaluating the case of the recent Dutch Societal Dialogue on Nanotechnology , 2012 .

[19]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[20]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[21]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[22]  Javier Lezaun,et al.  Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics , 2007 .

[23]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Nations at Ease with Radical Knowledge , 2010 .

[24]  Fiona Solomon,et al.  Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research , 2009 .

[25]  M. Kearnes,et al.  Reconfiguring responsibility : deepening debate on nanotechnology : a research report from the DEEPEN Project. , 2009 .

[26]  S. Jasanoff.  Science and citizenship: a new synergy , 2004 .

[27]  Michiel van Oudheusden,et al.  Contesting Co-Inquiry , 2012 .

[28]  H. Nowotny.  Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[29]  Kerry Ross.  Providing “thoughtful feedback”: Public participation in the regulation of Australia's first genetically modified food crop , 2007 .

[30]  Rosário Macário,et al.  Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport , 2006 .

[31]  M. Gorman,et al.  A framework for responsible innovation , 2013 .

[32]  H. Nowotny.  How Many Policy Rooms are There? , 2007 .

[33]  Susanna Hornig Priest.  Encyclopedia of science and technology communication , 2010 .

[34]  Arie Rip,et al.  Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World , 2008 .

[35]  R. van Est,et al.  The Netherlands : seeking to involve wider publics in technology assessment , 2002 .

[36]  Clare Shelley-Egan,et al.  Ethics in practice : responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society , 2011 .

[37]  Arie Rip,et al.  Responsible Innovation: Multi‐Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices , 2013 .

[38]  The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[39]  Lotte Krabbenborg,et al.  Dramatic Rehearsal on the Societal Embedding of the Lithium Chip , 2013 .

[40]  Arie Rip,et al.  Societal Embedding and Product Creation Management , 1997 .

[41]  Arie Rip,et al.  Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology , 2007 .

[42]  J. Maienschein,et al.  The Ethos and Ethics of Translational Research , 2008, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[43]  Robert Caverly,et al.  Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society , 2013 .

[44]  S. B. Emery,et al.  Maximizing the Policy Impacts of Public Engagement , 2015 .

[45]  Noortje Marres,et al.  The Issues Deserve More Credit , 2007 .

[46]  E. McCallie,et al.  Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy , 2009 .

[47]  Arie Rip,et al.  The past and future of RRI , 2014, Life sciences, society and policy.

[48]  R. V. Schomberg.  A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2013 .

[49]  A. Leshner,et al.  Public Engagement with Science , 2003, Science.

[50]  Tsjalling Swierstra,et al.  Risk and soft impacts , 2011 .

[51]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? , 2007 .

[52]  James Wilsdon,et al.  Why should we promote public engagement with science? , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[53]  Ulrike Felt,et al.  Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies , 2014 .

[54]  Michiel Van Oudheusden,et al.  Contesting Co-Inquiry: "Noncommunicative" Discourse in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment , 2012 .

[55]  Douglas K. R. Robinson.  Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies : experiments in interactions , 2010 .

[56]  A. Stirling.  “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[57]  Arie Rip,et al.  Positions and responsibilities in the ‘real’ world of nanotechnology , 2019, Nanotechnology and Its Governance.

[58]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? , 2007 .

[59]  Joanna Goven.  Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power , 2006 .

[60]  Ann Swidler.  CULTURE IN ACTION: SYMBOLS AND STRATEGIES* , 1986 .

[61]  A. J. Waarlo,et al.  Good Intentions, Stubborn Practice: A critical appraisal of a public event on cancer genomics , 2013 .

[62]  David Ahlstrom,et al.  Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective , 1997 .

[63]  D. Stemerding,et al.  Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality: A Scenario Study of Experimenting with Humans in Bionanotechnology , 2010 .

[64]  Arie Rip,et al.  Chapter 10. Antagonistic Patterns and New Technologies , 1998 .

[65]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments , 2006 .

[66]  B. Wynne,et al.  Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe , 2012 .

[67]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Constructing Communication , 2008 .