Models of Public Engagement: Nanoscientists’ Understandings of Science–Society Interactions

European Commission (2017) Dialogues on nanotechnology. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/policy-dialogues_en.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2017 European Commission (2017) Key areas of the European Strategy and the Action Plan. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/policy-key-areas_en.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2017 NSET—Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (2007): The National Nanotechnology Initiative—Strategic Plan. Prepared by the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology; Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. December 2007. Washington NSET—Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (2014): National Nanotechnology Initiative—Strategic Plan. Prepared by the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology; Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. February 2014. Washington Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London Grove-White R, Kearnes M, Miller P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B (2004) Bio-to-nano? Learning the lessons, interrogating the comparison. Working Paper Series 2004/5. Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University, Lancaster Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291 Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 4(1):57–74 Guston DH (2014) Understanding “anticipatory governance”. Soc Stud Sci 44(2):218–242 Burri RV (2009) Coping with uncertainty: assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst Sci 15(5):498–512 Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge Rip A (1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge 8(2):349–371 Limoges C (1993) Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Underst Sci 2(4):417–426 Hagendijk RP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42(1):41–59 Selin C, Campbell Rawlings K, de Ridder-Vignone K, Sadowski J, Altamirano Allende C, Gano G, Davies SR, Guston DH (2016) Experiments in engagement: designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Underst Sci 26(6):634–649 Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht Rowe G, Frewer L (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290 Public Understanding of Science (1986) The Royal Society reports. Sci Technol Hum Values 11(3):53–60 Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):111–121 Ziman J (1991) Public understanding of science. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):99–105 Wynne B (1992) Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Underst Sci 1:27–43 Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 2:321–337 Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Evans G, Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Underst Sci 4(1):57–74 Gustafson A, Rice RE (2016) Cumulative advantage in sustainability communication: unintended implications of the knowledge deficit model. Sci Commun 38(6):800–811 Wynne B (1992) Representing policy constructions and interests in SSK. Soc Stud Sci 22(3):575–580 Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):445–481 Jasanoff S (2000) The ‘science wars’ and American politics. In: Dierkes M, von Grote C (eds) Between understanding and trust: the public, science, and technology. Harwood Academic, Reading, pp 39–59 Yearley S (2000) What does science mean in the “public understanding of science”? In: Dierkes M, von Grote C (eds) Between understanding and trust: the public, science, and technology. Harwood Academic, Reading, pp 217–236 Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. Plenum, New York Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3):281–304 Yearley S (1999) Computer models and the public’s understanding of science. Soc Stud Sci 29(6):845–866 Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton Michael M (1992) Lay discourses of science: science-in general, science-in particular, and self. Sci Technol Hum Values 17(3):313–333 Felt U, Wynne B et al (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report to the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, DG Research, European Commission. European Commission, Brussels Epstein S (1996) Impure science: AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press, Berkeley Michael M (2002) Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Sci Technol Hum Values 27(3):357–378 Rabeharisoa V, Callon M (2004) Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 142–160 Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244 Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755 Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H et al (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2):167–184 Stilgoe J, Wilsdon J (2009) The new politics of public engagement with science. In: Holliman R et al (eds) Investigating science communication in the information age: implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 18–34 Callon M (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc 4(1):81–94 Felt U (2002) Sciences, science studies and their publics: speculating on future relations. In: Nowotny H, Joerges B (eds) Social studies of science and technology: looking back, ahead. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 11–31. The Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge Cormick C (2012) The complexity of public engagement. Nat Nanotechnol 7(February 2012):77–78 Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 23(1):4–15 Irwin A (2014) From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Underst Sci 23(1):71–76 Levidow L, Marris C (2001) Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Sci Public Policy 28(5):345–360 Jasanoff S (2007) Technologies of humility. Nature 450(7166):33 Davies S (2013) Constituting public engagement: meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Sci Commun 35(6):687–707 Chilvers J, Kearnes M (2016) Science, democracy and emergent publics. In: Chilvers J, Kearnes M (eds) Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics. Routledge, London, pp 1–28 Chilvers J (2012) Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Sci Commun 35(3):283–310 Miah A (2017) Nanoethics, science communication, and a fourth model for public engagement. NanoEthics 11(2):139–152 Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, RS Policy document. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London Joly P-B, Kaufmann A (2008) Lost in translation? The need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Sci Cult 17(3):225–247 Krabbenborg L, Mulder HAJ (2015) Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology: constraints and opportunities. Sci Commun 37(4):452–484 Joly P-B, Callon M et al (2005) Démocratie locale et maîtrise sociale des nanotechnologies: Les publics grenoblois peuvent-ils participer aux choix scientifiques et techniques?, Rapport de mission pour La Métro – Communauté d'agglomération de Grenoble Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London Rogers-Hayden T and Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnol Law Business (May/June) 167–178 Doubleday R (2007) Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 9(2):211–227 Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(3):387–391 Guston DH (2009) Deliberating nanotechnology in the US. People Sci 2009:22 Toumey C (2011) Science in the service of citizens and consumers. Nat Nanotechnol 6(1):3–4 Oudheusden van M, De Zutter H (2012) Contesting co-inquiry: “noncommunicative” discourse in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Commun 34(1):84–114 Marschalek I, Hofer M (2017) Nano and the public. Nat Nanotechnol 12(1):92 Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ et al (eds) The new handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000 Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) (2008) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol. 1. Springer, New York Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: deepening debate on nanotechnology: a research report from the DEEPEN project. Durham University, Durham Delgado A, Kjølberg KL, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(6):826–845 Toumey C (2011) Democratizing nanotech, then and now. Nat Nanotechnol 6(10):605–606 Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4):349–365 Burri RV (2007) Deliberating risks under uncertainty: experience, trust, and attitudes in a Swiss nanotechnology stakeholder group. NanoEthics 1(2):143–154 Laurent B (2007) Diverging convergences: competing meanings of nanotechnology and converging technologies in a local context. Innovation 20(4):343–357 Laurent B (2017) Democratic experiments: problematizing nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. MIT Press, Cambridge Macnaghten P, Davies SR, Kearnes M (2015) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. J Environ Policy Plann. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110 Felt U, Schumann S, Schwarz C (2015) (Re)assembling natures, cultures, and (nano)technologies in public engagement. Sci Cult 24(4):458–483 Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570 Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405 Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1(3):153–155 Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views of science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–206 Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–200 Dudo A, Kahlor L, AbiGhannam N, Lezard A, Liang M-C (2014) An analysis of nanotechnologists as public communicators. Nat Nanotechnol 9(10):841–844 Kahlor LA, Dudo A, Liang M-C, Lazard AJ, AbiGhannam N (2016) Ethics information seeking and sharing among scientists: the case of nanotechnology. Sci Commun 38(1):74–98 Kim Y, Corley E, Scheufele DA (2017) Nanoscientists and political involvement: which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates? Sci Public Policy 44(3):317–327 Felt U, Fochler M (2008) The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Sci Public Policy 35(7):489–499 Felt U, Fochler M, Mager A, Winkler P (2008) Visions and versions of governing biomedicine. Soc Stud Sci 38(2):233–257 Burchell K (2006) The response of scientists to deliberative public engagement: a UK perspective. Conference paper. LSE research online (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6696) Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) (2009) Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Horst M (2013) A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Sci Commun 35(6):758–779 Powell MC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9(2):173–190 Johansson M, Boholm A (2017) Scientists’ understandings of risk of nanomaterials: disciplinary culture through the ethnographic lens. Nanoethics 11(3):229–242 Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320 Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Commun Genet 9:211–220 Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243 Stirling A (2005) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London, pp 218–231 Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies—engaging differently? NanoEthics 1(2):123–130 Jasanoff S (2015) Future imperfect: science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In: Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (eds) Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–33 Davies S (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434 Wickson F, Delgado A, Kjølberg KL (2010) Who or what is “the public”? Nat Nanotechnol 5(11):757–758 Peters HP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(supl.3 (August 20)):14102–14109 Irwin A, Jensen TE, Jones KE (2006) The good, the bad, and the perfect: criticising engagement practice. Soc Stud Sci 43(1):118–135 Felt U (2018) Responsible research and innovation. In: Gibbon S, Prainsack B, Hilgartner S, Lamoreaux J (eds) Handbook of genomics, health and society. Routledge, London Wynne B (2016) Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and social science in a time of expert dogma and denial. In: Chilvers J, Kearnes M (eds) Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics. Routledge, London, pp 99–120 Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In: Weber M (ed) (1988 [1922]) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 7th edn. J.C.B. Mohr UTB, Tübingen, pp 146–214 Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39(6):751–760 Stilgoe J, Guston DH (2017) Responsible research and innovation. In: Felt U et al (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 4th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 853–880 Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198