Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities
Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Barben B., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D. (2007). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement and integration. In Hackett E., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M., Wacjman J. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979-1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Jones M., Pidgeon N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 474-500.
Boenink M., Swierstra T., Stemerding D. (2010). Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(2), 1-38.
Burgess J., Chilvers J. (2006). Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Science and Public Policy, 33, 713-728.
Chilvers J. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35, 283-310.
CieMDN. (2009). The committee responsible for the Dutch Societal Dialogue on nanotechnology: Towards a public agenda on nanotechnology. Retrieved from http://www.nanopodium.nl/CieMDN/content/Compleet_folder_290909_DEF.pdf
CieMDN. (2011). Responsibly onwards with nanotechnology; findings March 2009–January 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nanopodium.nl/CieMDN/content/Webversie_Verantwoord_Verder_260111_DEF_compleet.pdf
Citizens Jury Les Nanos et Nous France. (2007). Retrieved from http://espaceprojets.iledefrance.fr/jahia/Jahia/NanoCitoyens/site/projets
Civil Society-Labor Coalition. (2007). Civil society-labor coalition rejects fundamentally flawed DuPont-EDF framework (An open letter to the International Nanotechnology Community at Large). Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-societylabor-coalition-rejects-fundamentally-flawed-dupont-ed-proposed-nanotechnology
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research & Council conclusions on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-apr09_en.pdf
Davies S. R., McCallie E., Simsonsson E., et al. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public understanding of science, 18, 338-353.
Davies S.R., Macnaghten P., Kearnes M. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Deepening debate on nanotechnology. Durham, NC: Durham University.
Davies S. R. (2008). Constructing communication. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
Davies S. R. (2011). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science, 1-15.
Deuten J. J., Rip A., Jelsma J. (1997). Societal embedding and product creation management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9, 113-148.
Dijkgraaf A. (2008, October). Nano de Bruxelles. Technisch Weekblad, C2W19. Retrieved from http://www.technischweekblad.nl/nano-de-bruxelles.78466.lynkx
Doridot F. (2010, September). Contributions and limits of the French national public debate on nanotechnology. Paper presented at the second annual conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany. Abstract retrieved from http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/philosophie_nanobuero/snet/text/abstracts.pdf
Dortmans K., Swierstra T. (2013). Maintaining reasonableness: How facilitators can improve the quality of public deliberation on new and emerging science and technology. In Konrad K., Van Lente H., Coenen C., Dijkstra A., Milburn C. (Eds.), Shaping emerging technologies: Governance innovation, discourse (pp. 21-35). Berlin, Germany: IOS Press.
Doubleday R. (2007). Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 211-227.
Emery S. B., Mulder H. A. J., Frewer L. J. (2014). Maximizing the policy impacts of public engagement: A European study. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(3), 421-444
European Commission. (2008). Public engagement in science (No. EUR 23334). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2015). European Commission Decision C: Horizon 2020—Work programme 2014-2015: Science with and for Society (Revised). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-swfs_en.pdf
Felt U., Schumann S., Schwarz C., Strassnig M. (2014). Technology of imagination: A card based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research, 14, 233-251.
Fisher E., Mahajan R. L., Mitcham C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 485-496.
Fisher E., O’Rourke M., Evans R., Kennedy E. B., Gorman M. B., Seager T. P. (2015). Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 39-61.
Fisher E., Rip A. (2013). Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In Owen R., Heintz M., Bessant J. (Eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 165-184). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Garud R., Ahlstrom D. (1997). Technology assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 25-48.
Genus A., Rogers-Hayden T. (2005). Genetic engineering in Aotearoa, New Zealand: A case of opening up or closing down debate? In Leach M., Scoones I., Wynne B. (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 244-248). London, England: Zed Books.
Goven J. (2006). Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31, 565-598.
Hagendijk R. (2005). Science, technology and governance in Europe (STAGE): Challenges of public engagement (Report No. HPSE-CT2001-50003). Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
Hajer M., Houterman G. (1985). Energy policy and democratization. Intermediar, 21(29), 19-27. (Article in Dutch)
Hanssen L. (2009). From transmission towards transaction: Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.wetenschapsinformatienetwerk.be/sites/default/files/bijlage/f063490046435a30ee9b58b36924388c.pdf
Hanssen L., Langeslag M., Vos T., Walhout B. (2011). Een Reflectieve Analyse van de Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie [A reflective analysis of the Dutch Societal Dialogue on Nanotechnology]. The Hague, Netherlands: Rathenau Instituut.
Horst M., Irwin A. (2010). Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science, 40, 105-126.
Irwin A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23, 71-76.
Jasanoff S. (2004). Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy, 31, 90-94.
Krabbenborg L. (2012). The potential of national public engagement exercises: Evaluating the case of the recent Dutch Societal Dialogue on nanotechnology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Societies, 10, 27-44.
Krabbenborg L. (2013a). Dramatic rehearsal on the societal embedding of the lithium chip. In Swierstra T., Van der Burg S. (Eds.), Ethics on the laboratory floor: Towards a cooperative ethics for the development of responsible technology. New York, NY: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Katz E., Solomon F., Mee W., Lovel R. (2009). Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: A case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 531-545.
Krabbenborg L. (2013b). DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: An occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. NanoEthics, 7(1), 45-54.
Krabbenborg L. (2013c). The involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: Creating productive spaces for interaction (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Lezaun J., Soneryd L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279-297.
Macnaghten P., Davies S., Kearnes M. (2010). Narrative and public engagement: Some findings from the DEEPEN project. In Von Schomberg R., Davies S. (Eds.), Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: Options for framing public policy (pp. 11-29). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Macnaghten P., Kearnes M., Wynne B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27, 268-291.
Maienschein J., Sunderland M., Ankeny R. A., Robert J. S. (2008). The ethos and ethics of translational research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 43-51.
Malsch I. (2011). Onwards responsibly with nanotechnology (Interview with Professor Peter Nijkamp; Current Trends in Communicating Nanoethics) [Web article]. Available from NanoEthicsBank database.
Marres N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Study of Science, 37, 759-780.
Marris C., Joly P. B., Rip A. (2008). Interactive technology assessment in the real world: Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 77-100.
Mens J. (2008). Nanotechnology? What should environmental organizations do? (Report of workshop organized by The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment). Utrecht, Netherlands: The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment.
Ministerial Decree on Implementation. (2009). Instellingsbesluit Commissie Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie (Staatscourant nr 61). The Hague, Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0025574/geldigheidsdatum_31-12-2010
Nowotny H. (2007). How many policy rooms are there? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 479-490.
Nowotny H. (2014). Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 16-20.
O’Doherty K., Einsiedel E. (Eds.). (2012). Public engagement and emerging technologies. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J., Gorman M., Fisher E., Guston D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In Owen R., Bessant J., Heitz M. (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27-50). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Parandian A. (2012). Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies: Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University Delft, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3Ab9075a69-2580-4800-90b2-b67d20a9c357/
Pfersdorf S. P. (2012). Governing nanotechnology through stakeholder dialogues: The example of the German NanoKommission. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 10, 44-60.
Pidgeon N., Rogers-Hayden T. (2005). Public engagements on GM and nanotechnology: Nick Pidgeon and Tee Rogers-Hayden weigh up the differences. Science and Public Affairs, June, 14-15.
Pidgeon N., Rogers-Hayden T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210.
Powell M. C., Colin M. (2008). Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. Science Communication, 30, 126-136.
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Government]. (2006). Vision document: Nanotechnologieen: Van klein naar groots (29 338 No. 54). The Hague, Netherlands: Author.
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Government]. (2008). Action plan for nanotechnology. The Hague, Netherlands: Author.
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Government]. (2011). Progress report nanotechnology (No. 29 338-110, 112). The Hague, Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2011/09/23/kamerbrief-nanotechnologie.html
Rip A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10, 17.
Rip A. (2012). Course Text: Tools for analysis of, and reflection on, controversies: Illustrated by the Colmar GM field test trajectory and more generally, the dialogue between science and society. Master’s Course ‘Espaces, Ressources, Milieux’, AgroParis Tech.
Rip A., Joly P. B. (2004). Multi-actor spaces and the governance of science and innovation in the ERA (PRIME-TN, Work Package 2). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/prime-tn-final-report_en.pdf
Rip A., Shelley-Egan C. (2010). Positions and responsibilities in the “real” world of nanotechnology. In Von Schomberg R., Davies S. R. (Eds.), Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies, options for framing public policy (pp. 31-38). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Rip A., Talma A. S. (1998). Antagonistic patterns and new technologies. In Disco C., van der Meulen B. (Eds.), Getting new technologies together (pp. 299-323). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Robinson D. K. R. (2010). Constructive technology assessment of newly emerging nanotechnologies: Experiments in interactions (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/74640/1/thesis_D_Robinson.pdf
Rogers-Hayden T., Pidgeon N. (2006). Reflecting opon the UK’s Citizens’ Jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 3(2), 167-178.
Rogers-Hayden T. (2010). Upstream engagement. In Priest S. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (Vol. 2, p. 925). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ross K. (2007). Providing “Thoughtful Feedback”: Public participation in the regulation of Australia’s first genetically modified food crop. Science and Public Policy, 34, 213-225.
Shelley-Egan C. (2011). Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Enschede, Netherlands: Ipskamp Drukkers.
Stilgoe J., Locke S. J., Wilsdon J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15.
Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. (2013). Developing a framework of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568-1580.
Stirling A. (2008). “Opening up” and “Closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 262-294.
Swidler A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
Swierstra T., Rip A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics, 1, 3-20.
Swierstra T., Te Molder H. (2012). Risk and soft impacts. In Roeser S., Hillerbrand R., Sandin P., Peterson M. (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 1050-1066). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Te Molder H. (2011). Beyond happy science and grim technology: Science communication in an interactional perspective. Inaugural Lecture, University of Twente.
Thorpe C., Gregory J. (2010). Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19, 273-301.
Van Oudheusden M., De Zutter H. (2012). Contesting co-inquiry. Science Communication, 34(1), 84-114.
Van Est R., Van Eijndhoven J., Aarts W., Loeber A. (2002). The Netherlands: Seeking to involve wider public in technology assessment. In Joss S., Belluci S. (Eds.), Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives (pp. 108-125). London, England: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Verhoeff R. P., Waarlo A. J. (2011). Good intentions, stubborn practice: A critical appraisal of a public event on cancer genomics. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3, 1-24.
Vickerman R. (2007). Can business strategy influence policy cycles? In Macário R., Viegas J. M., Hensher D. A. (Eds.), Competition and ownership in land passenger transport (pp. 215-229). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Von Schomberg R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Dusseldop M., Beecroft R. (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer methoden (pp. 39-61). Wiesbaden, Germany: Vs Verlag.
Von Schomberg R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Owen R., Heintz M., Bessant J. (Eds.), Responsible innovation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wickson F., Wynne B. (2012). Ethics of science for policy in the environmental governance of biotechnology: Mon810 maize in Europe. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15, 321-340.
Wilsdon J., Willis R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos.
Wynne B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445-481.
Wynne B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
Wynne B. (2007). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 491-503.
Biographies
Lotte Krabbenborg, MA, PhD, has done this research as a PhD student at the Science and Society Group, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. She now works as a postdoctoral researcher at ISIS, Radboud University Nijmegen, in the Netherlands. She is interested in governance issues related to the development of newly emerging science and technologies, in particular multistakeholder dialogues and the role of civil society actors.
Henk A. J. Mulder, MSc, PhD, is a science communication lecturer and science shop coordinator at the Science and Society Group, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. He is involved in international projects to advance cooperative research with civil society organizations.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: May 27, 2015
Issue published: August 2015
Keywords
History
Published online: May 27, 2015
Issue published: August 2015
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 932
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Web of Science: 37 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 40
- “What Was That Word? It’s Part of Ensuring Its Future Existence” Explo...
- Translating tools and indicators in territorial RRI
- Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology researc...
- The Golem and The Leviathan: Two Guiding Images of Irresponsible Techn...
- Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation in Museums Through Hands...
- How to fulfill the expert role in public dialogue: The Dutch dialogue ...
- Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Towar...
- Public Engagement Practices in EC-Funded RRI Projects: Fostering Socio...
- Public communication at research universities: Moving towards (de)cent...
- Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and In...
- Public Awareness of Nanotechnology and Its Implications for Health in ...
- Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review
- Limits and benefits of participatory agenda setting for research and i...
- Rethinking societal engagement under the heading of Responsible Resear...
- Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars ...
- Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic...
- From collaborative to institutional reflexivity: Calibrating responsib...
- Citizen Science Fiction: The Potential of Situated Speculative Prototy...
- Social participation in science: Perspectives of Spanish civil society...
- The Netherlands: From the first science information officers to the Du...
- Deliberation on the risks of nanoscale materials: learning from the pa...
- Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review
- Utility of science, technology and innovation governance for occupatio...
- Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Litera...
- Emerging patterns in the academic literature on responsible research a...
- Atomically Precise Manufacturing and Responsible Innovation
- Rediscovering public engagement in higher education: A bridge between ...
- The role of civil society organisations in European responsible resear...
- Inspired by the Cosmos: Strategies for Public Engagement in Nonpolicy ...
- The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologi...
- Models of Public Engagement: Nanoscientists’ Understandings of Science...
- Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro...
- Nanoethics, Science Communication, and a Fourth Model for Public Engag...
- Into Blue Skies—a Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation Method f...
- Basic Concepts and Principles
- Human centred science and technology—transdisciplinary foresight and c...
- Socially responsible research processes for sustainability transformat...
- Defining Nano, Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine: Why Should It Matter?
- Give Me an Experiment and I Will Raise a Laboratory
- Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actor...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
