HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Fem Stud, 14, 575–599.
10.
HarrisJ. (2019). Together we can thwart the big-tech data grab. Here's how. The Guardian, January7.
11.
KalowW, OzdemirV, TangBK, TothfalusiL, and EndrenyiL. (1999). The science of pharmacological variability: An essay. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 66, 445–447.
12.
LarsonC. (2018). Who needs democracy when you have data?. MIT Technology Review, August20.
13.
LatourB. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
OzdemirV, KalowW, TangBK, et al. (2000). Evaluation of the genetic component of variability in CYP3A4 activity: A repeated drug administration method. Pharmacogenetics, 10, 373–388.
15.
OzdemirV, Suarez-KurtzG, StenneR, et al. (2009). Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype associations with multifactorial phenotypes: The concept of “edge effect” and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society. OMICS, 13, 43–61.
16.
ÖzdemirV, KolkerE, HotezPJ, et al. (2014). Ready to put metadata on the post-2015 development agenda? Linking data publications to responsible innovation and science diplomacy. OMICS, 18, 1–9.
17.
ÖzdemirV, DandaraC, HekimN, et al. (2017). Stop the spam! Conference ethics and decoding the subtext in post-truth science. What would Denis Diderot say? OMICS, 21, 658–664.
18.
ÖzdemirV. (2018a). The dark side of the moon: The Internet of Things, industry 4.0, and the quantified planet. OMICS, 22, 637–641.
19.
ÖzdemirV. (2018b). The Fly on the Wall…. Agos Newspaper, December24.
20.
ÖzdemirV, and HekimN. (2018). Birth of industry 5.0: Making sense of big data with artificial intelligence, “The Internet of Things” and next-generation technology policy. OMICS, 22, 65–76.
21.
ÖzdemirV, and SpringerS. (2018). What does “Diversity” mean for public engagement in science? A new metric for innovation ecosystem diversity. OMICS, 22, 184–189.
22.
ÖzdemirV. (2019). Towards an “ethics-of-ethics” for responsible innovation. In: Handbook of Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. von SchombergR, and HankinsJ, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, (in press).
23.
RavetzJ. (2016). How should we treat science's growing pains?. The Guardian, June8.
24.
ReadM. (2018). How Much of the Internet Is Fake? Turns Out, a Lot of It, Actually. New York Magazine (Intelligencer), December26.
25.
RipA. (2016). The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels. J Respons Innov, 3, 290–304.
26.
SaltelliA, and GiampietroM. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?. Futures, 91, 62–71.
27.
SarewitzD. (2011). The voice of science: Let's agree to disagree. Nature, 478, 7.
28.
SarewitzD. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis, 49 (Spring/Summer), 4–40.
29.
StilgoeJ, LockSJ, and WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public Underst Sci, 23, 4–15.
30.
ThoreauF, and DelvenneP. (2012). Have STS fallen into a political void? Depoliticisation and engagement in the case of nanotechnologies. Politica Sociedade, 11, 205–226.
31.
von SchombergR. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Responsible Innovation. OwenR, BessantJ, and HeintzM, eds. USA: Wiley, 51–74.
32.
WhiteAJ. (2018). Google.gov. The New Atlantis, 55, 3–34.