The policy shift towards “upstream public engagement” requires dealing with a lack of individual and stabilized scientific knowledge that accompanies any early stage of research and development. This article examines how actors cope with this epistemic uncertainty when deliberating emerging technologies. Analyzing the arguments of the participants in a Swiss citizen panel on nanotechnology, the article explores how actors form their opinions in an epistemically nonstabilized situation. The article shows how actors develop a strategy to handle this situation: analogies, such as to other risk technologies or “nature,” and personal experiences as patients and consumers are used as interpretive patterns and serve as tools to cope with the unknown. Focusing on the ways uncertainty is handled, this approach is differentiated from other models to explain public attitudes toward emerging technologies, such as the “scientific literacy model” or the “cognitive miser model.”
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A. and Wilkinson, C. ( 2005) "The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press," Science Communication27(2): 200-20.
Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G., eds (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Bauer, M.W. and Schoon, I. ( 1993) "Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science," Public Understanding of Science2(2): 141-55.
5.
Beck, U. ( 1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
6.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
7.
Burri, R.V. ( 2007) "Deliberating Risks under Uncertainty: Experience, Trust, and Attitudes in a Swiss Nanotechnology Stakeholder Discussion Group," Nanoethics1(2): 143-54.
8.
Burri, R.V. and Bellucci, S. ( 2008) "Public Perception of Nanotechnology", Journal of Nanoparticle Research10(3): 387-91.
9.
Cobb, M. and Macoubrie, J. ( 2004) "Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust," Journal of Nanoparticle Research6(4): 395-405.
10.
Cook, A.J. and Fairweather, J.R. ( 2005) "Nanotechnology-Ethical and Social Issues: Results from New Zealand Focus Groups." Research Report no. 281. Canterbury , New Zealand: Lincoln University. URL: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/1330_rr281_s4140.pdf (accessed 24 June 2006).
11.
Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. ( 1997) Citizens’ Juries: Theory into Practice. London: Institute of Public Policy Research.
12.
Crichton, M. ( 2002) Prey. New York: HarperCollins.
13.
Currall, S.C., King, E.B., Lane, N., Madera, J. and Turner, S. ( 2006) "What Drives Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology?", Nature Nanotechnology 1(December 2006): 153-55.
14.
Drexler, E.K. ( 1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology . New York: Anchor.
15.
ETC Group (2003) The Big Down: Atomtech-Technologies Converging at the Nanoscale. Winnipeg, Man: ETC Group.
16.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. ( 1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. ( 2004) "Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States," Nature Materials3(8): 496.
18.
Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. ( 2005) "Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States," Public Understanding of Science14: 81-90.
19.
Goffman, E. ( 1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
20.
Goffman, E. ( 1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Hornig Priest, S. ( 2001) A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield .
22.
Jasanoff, S., ed (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.
23.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Joss, S. and Durant, J., eds (1995) Public Participation in Science: the Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
25.
Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wilsdon, J. ( 2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.
26.
Lachmund, J. ( 2004) "Mapping Urban Nature: Bio-Ecological Expertise and Urban Planning," in E. Kurz-Milcke and G. Gigerenzer (eds) Experts in Science and Society, pp. 231-48. New York: Kluwer Academic.
27.
Latour, B. ([ 1991] 1995) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Latour, B. ( 2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Lewenstein, B.V. ( 2005) "Introduction: Nanotechnology and the Public," Science Communication27(2): 169-74.
30.
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M.B. and Wynne, B. ( 2005) "Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?" Science Communication27(2): 268-91.
31.
Macoubrie, J. ( 2005) "Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government." Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=166192&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=143410 (accessed 26 November 2006).
32.
Macoubrie, J. ( 2006) "Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government," Public Understanding of Science15(2): 221-41.
33.
Madison (2005) " Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology ." 24 April. URL: http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/research/Nano/nanoreport42805.pdf (accessed 5 April 2006).
34.
Miller, J.D. ( 1998) "The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203-23.
35.
Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. ( 2002) "Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press 1970-1999" Science Communication23(4): 359-91.
36.
Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E. and Oberdörster, J. ( 2005) "Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles," Environmental Health Perspectives113(7): 823-39.
37.
Popkin, S.L. ( 1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S. ( 2005) "Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Maximizing Human Benefit," Journal of Nanoparticle Research7: 1-13.
39.
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. ( 2006) "Reflecting upon the UK’s Citizens’ Jury on Nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK," Nanotechnology Law & Business (May/June): 167-78.
40.
Royal Society ( 2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. RS policy document. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
41.
Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. ( 2005) "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies," Journal of Nanoparticle Research7: 659-67.
42.
Stephens, L.F. ( 2005) "News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers," Science Communication27(2): 175-99.
43.
Stilgoe, J. and Wilson, R. ( 2005) Public Engagement with Science. London : Demos.
44.
Stirling, A. ( 2005) "Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology," in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 218-31. London and New York: Zed Books.
TA-Swiss (2005) Publifocus Nanotechnologie, Projektantrag für die Durchführung eines partizipativen Verfahrens zum Thema "Nanotechnologie-Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt." TA/CD 05-22, 9 September. Bern: Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Schweizerischen Wissenschafts- und Technologierat.
47.
TA-Swiss (2006a) Publifocus "Nanotechnologien-Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt." Projektbeschrieb für die Durchführung eines Dialog-Verfahrens mit Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. Bern: Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Schweizerischen Wissenschafts- und Technologierat.
48.
TA-Swiss (2006b) Know Your Nano! Information Brochure for Publifocus "Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment." Bern: Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council. URL: http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano_pfna/2006_TAP8_IB_Nanotechnologien_e.pdf
49.
TA-Swiss (2006c) Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. Report on Publifocus Discussion Forum "Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment." TA-P 8/2006. Bern: Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council.
50.
Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D. and Batt, C.A. ( 2006) "The Current State of Public Understanding of Nanotechnology ," Journal of Nanoparticle Research8: 569-75.
51.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. ( 2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
52.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. ( 2005) The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
53.
Wynne, B. ( 1987) "Risk Perception, Decision Analysis and the Public Acceptance Problem," in B. Wynne (ed.) Risk Management and Hazardous Waste: Implementation and the Dialectics of Credibility, pp. 356-96. Berlin: Springer .
54.
Wynne, B. ( 1991) "Knowledges in Context," Science, Technology, and Human Values16(1): 111-21.
55.
Ziman, J. ( 1991) "Public Understanding of Science," Science, Technology, and Human Values16(1): 99-105.
