Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:185–210

Amtenbrink F, De Haan J (2003) Economic governance in the EU: fiscal policy discipline versus flexibility. Common Mark Law Rev 40:1075–1106

Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139

Blaser SA et al (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nanofunctionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390:396–409

Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164

Bullis K (2005) Can EPA regulate nano? Monitoring complex new nanotech materials may be too much for the agency to handle, in Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405083/can-epa-regulate-nano/ . Accessed 21 Feb 2013

Burd A (2011) Nano silver: environmental health effects. In: JO Nriagu (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, pp 22–23

Christensen FM et al (2010) Nano-silver: feasibility and challenges for human health risk assessment based on open literature. Nanotoxicology 4:284–295

Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit PH (eds) The good polity: normative analysis of the state. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1573–1585

CRO Forum (2010) Nanotechnology. CRO briefing: emerging risks initiative—position paper, November 2010. http://www.thecroforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Nanotechnology.pdf . Accessed 21 Feb 2013

Daniels N (1996) Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

DePaul M (2011) Methodological issues: reflective equilibrium. In: Miller C (ed) The continuum companion to ethics. Continuum, London, pp lxxv–cv

Doorn N (2010) Applying Rawlsian approaches to resolve ethical issues: inventory and setting of a research agenda. J Bus Eth 91:127–143

Doorn N (2010) A Rawlsian approach to distribute responsibilities in networks. Sci Eng Ethics 16:221–249

Doorn N (2012) Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Sci Technol Hum Values 37:180–209

Dorbeck-Jung BR (2007) What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? NanoEthics 1:257–270

Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S (2006) Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. Am J Polit Sci 50:634–649

Elster J (1998) Deliberation and constitution making. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–122

EU (2004) Nanotechnologies. A preliminary risk analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf . Accessed 21 Feb 2013

EU (2006) Opinion of the European economic and social committee on nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009 (INT/277). 2006

EU (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Commitee, in SEC(2008) 2036. 2008

Fan AM, Alexeeff G (2010) Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: toxicology, risk assessment, and regulations. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 10:8646–8657

Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4:27–52

Glenna LL (2010) Value-laden technocratic management and environmental conflicts: the case of the New York City watershed controversy. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:81–112

Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403

Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:185–195

Grin J et al (2004) Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:126–149

Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (2010) Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 3–24

Hogle LF (2009) Science, ethics, and the “problems” of governing nanotechnologies. J Law Med Ethics 37:749–758

Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J (2004) Political disagreement: the survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Jacobsson K (2004) Between deliberation and discipline: soft governance in EU employment policy. In: Mörth U (ed) Soft law and governance in regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Keulartz J et al (2004) Ethics in a technological culture. A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:3–29

Klabbers J (1998) The undesirability of soft law. Nord J Int Law 67:381–391

Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from “wow” to “yuck”? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20

Litton P (2007) Nanoethics: What’s new? Hast Cent Rep 37:22–25

Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60

Mastenbroek E (2009) Procedural legitimacy and EU compliance. In: Politicologenetmaal, May 18–19. 2009. Berg en Dal, The Netherlands. http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/523705/paperpoletmaalmastenbroek.pdf . Accessed 21 Feb 2013

McCarthy T (1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in dialogue. Ethics 105:44–63

McCray PW (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. J Hist Technol 21:177–203

McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: Foundational questions and answers. NanoEthics 4:115–128

Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 446–461

Milieu Ltd/RPA (2009) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on the market ( http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Options.pdf ). Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

Milieu Ltd/RPA (2010) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: proposal for an EU reporting system for nanomaterials ( http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Reporting-Mechanisms.pdf ), chapter 4. Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc Res 66:745–758

Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London

Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453

Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274

Nowack B, Krug HF, Height M (2010) 120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. Environ Sci Technol 45:1177–1183

Patenaude J et al (2011) Moral arguments in the debate over nanotechnologies: Are we talking past each other? NanoEthics 5(3):285–293

Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5:143–157

Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York

Rawls J (1995) Political liberalism: reply to Habermas. J Philos 92:132–180

Rawls J (1999 [1971]) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

Renn O, Klinke A, Van Asselt MBA (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40:231–246

Reuzel RPB et al (2001) Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 26:245–261

Risse T (2009) Social constructivism and European integration. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds) European integration theory, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–161

Rogers JD, Bozeman B (2001) “Knowledge Value Alliances”: an alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:23–55

Saari E, Miettinen R (2001) Dynamics of change in research work: constructing a new research area in a research group. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:300–321

Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol 7:385–403

Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep 10:424–427

Seaton A et al (2010) Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J R Soc Interface 7:S119–S129

Snyder F (1995) The effectiveness of EU law. In: Daintith T (ed) Implementing EC law in the UK. Wiley, New York

Spier RE (2010) “Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives A Summary and Some Reflections on ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail’. Sci Eng Ethics 16:1–6

Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294

Stokes E (2011) You are what you eat: market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. J Hum Rights Environ 2:178–200

Swierstra TE, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20

Toumey C (2010) Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 46–59

Trubek DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2005) ‘Soft Law’, ‘Hard Law’ and European integration. In: G de Burca, J Scott (eds) New governance and constitutionalism in Europe and the US. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–94

Tyler TR (2001) Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law 19:215–235

Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400

Van Asselt MBA, Renn O (2011) Risk Governance. J Risk Res 14:431–449

Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 11:281–300

Van Calster G, Bowman DM (2009) Regulatory design for new technologies: spaghetti junction or Bauhaus principles for regulating innovative products. Notizie Politeia XXV:75–93

Van de Poel IR (2008) How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:25–38

Van de Poel IR (2009) The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In: Arnaldi S, Lorenzet A, Russo F (eds) Technoscience in progress: managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 129–142

Van de Poel IR, Zwart SD (2010) Reflective Equilibrium in R&D networks. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:174–199

Van der Bruggen K (2012) Possibilities, intentions and threats: dual use in the life sciences reconsidered. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):741–756

Van der Burg S (2009) Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Sci Eng Ethics 15:97–110

Van Est R, Walhout B (2007) Verslaglegging workshop nanoveiligheid. Rathenau, The Hague

Van Oudheusden M, De Zutter H (2012) Contesting co-inquiry: “Noncommunicative” discourse in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Commun 34:84–114

Van Thiel, GJMW (2009) Moral Wisdom in the Balance: Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model for Bioethics [PhD thesis]. Utrecht University, Utrecht

Vogelezang-Stoute L, Popma J, Aalders M (2011) Is onze regelgeving ‘nanoproof’? Ned Juristenblad 1258

Von Schomberg R (1993) Controversies and political decision making. In: Von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics and morality: scientific uncertainty and decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

Von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

Von Schomberg R (2011) On identifying plausibility and deliberative public policy. Commentary on: “Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology”. Sci Eng Ethics 17:739–742

Von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Von Schomberg R, Guimarães Pereira Â, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

Webb K (2004) Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In: Webb K (ed) Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest, and innovation. Carleton University, Ottawa, pp 3–32

WRR (2009) Uncertain safety: allocating responsibility for safety (report nr. 82; Scientific Council for Government Policy). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

Young IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxfort University Press, Oxford