This paper offers a comparative analysis of two public engagement exercises, conducted concurrently in the UK and Brazil. Following an account of how public engagement is situated in the political imaginary of the UK and Brazil, we set out a theoretical framework for such comparison, highlighting questions of narrative, political culture and civic epistemology. We then set out key differences in response, considering Brazilian citizen responses as prototypically more positive of (nano)technology, and as more amenable to and accepting of Enlightenment master narratives of technoscientific progress. UK citizen responses, by contrast, were more tragic, and more informed by resistant narratives of technoscientific failure. Although such distinctions are not absolute, they are nevertheless significant. We conclude by pointing to a set of analytical and normative challenges for how the science and technology studies analyst is to understand the politically contingent character of public engagement in the governance of science and technology.
AlmeidaA (2007) A Cabeça do Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.
2.
CaubetC (2000) A Situação do Conselho Nacional de Recursos Hídricos. In: LeiteJ (ed.) Inovações em Direito Ambiental. Florianópolis: Fundação J. A. Boiteux, 171–182.
3.
Council for Science and Technology (2005) Policy through Dialogue: Informing Policies based on Science and Technology. London: Council for Science and Technology.
4.
DaviesSMacnaghtenPKearnesM (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham: Durham University.
5.
Department of Trade and Industry (2000) Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century. London: DTI.
6.
DominguesJ (2001) Cidadania, direitos e modernidade. In: SouzaJ (ed.) Democracia Hoje. Novos desafios para a teoria democrática contemporânea. Brasília: Editora da UnB, 213–244.
7.
DupuyJ (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy32(3): 237–261.
8.
European Commission (2002) Science and Society: Action Plan. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.
9.
FeltUWynneB (2007) Taking European Knowledge Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research, European Commission.
10.
FleckL (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
11.
GaskellGTen EyckTJacksonJVeltriG (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science14: 81–90.
12.
GavelinKWilsonRDoubledayR (2007) Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
13.
GiddensA (1999) Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile.
14.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtenPMayerSWynneB (1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: CSEC (Centre for the Study of Environmental Change).
15.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtenPWynneB (2000) Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies. Lancaster: CSEC.
16.
GuivantJ (2001) Global food risks: Environmental and health concerns in Brazil. In: Academia Brasileira de Ciências (eds) Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Rio de Janeiro: Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 249–277.
17.
GuivantJ (2006) Transgênicos e Percepção Pública da Ciência no Brasil [GMOs and Public Perception of Science in Brazil]. Ambiente e Sociedade9(1): 81–103.
18.
GuivantJ (2008) Cosmopolitanism and environmental sociology: An analysis of the GMO debate in Brazil. In: DasguptaS (ed.) Understanding the Global Environment. New Delhi: Pearson Education, 354–380.
19.
HartPDResearch Associates (2007) Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies. Washington DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
20.
HellerA (2005) European master narratives of freedom. In: DelantyG (ed.) Handbook of European Social Theory. London: Routledge, 257–265.
21.
HilgartnerSBoskC (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94(1): 53–78.
22.
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, and Department for Education and Skills (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014. London: HM Treasury.
23.
HorstMIrwinA (2010) Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science40: 105–126.
24.
House of Lords (2000) Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. London: The Stationery Office.
25.
IrwinA (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–330.
26.
IrwinA (2008) STS perspectives on scientific governance. In: HackettEAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 583–607.
27.
IrwinAMichaelM (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
28.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29.
JurbergCVerjovskyMde Oliveira Cardoso MachadoGAffonso-MitidieriOR (2009) Embryonic stem cell: A climax in the reign of the Brazilian media. Public Understanding of Science18(6): 719–729.
30.
KearnesMMacnaghtenPWilsdonJ (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297.
33.
MacnaghtenP (2004) Animals in their nature: A case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and “nature.”Sociology38(3): 533–551.
34.
MacnaghtenP (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment & Planning A41: 23–37.
35.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–287.
36.
MichaelM (2006) Technoscience and Everyday Life: The Complex Simplicities of the Mundane. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
37.
NordmannA (2005) Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology8(3): 3–23.
38.
NordmannA (2007) If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics1(1): 31–46.
39.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting Environmental Standards. 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London: The Stationery Office.
40.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008) Novel Materials in the Environment: The Case of Nanotechnology. 27th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London: The Stationery Office.
41.
Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
42.
SouzaA (2009) Licenciamento Ambiental no Brasil. PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.
43.
SouzaJ (2001) Democracia e personalismo para Roberto DaMatta: descobrindo nossos mistérios ou sistematizando nossos auto-enganos? In: SouzaJ (ed.) Democracia Hoje. Novos desafios para a teoria democrática contemporânea. Brasília: Editora da UnB, 165–200.
44.
VogelD (1986) National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, NJ: Cornell University Press.
45.
VogtCPolinoC (eds) (2003) Percepcão Pública da Ciencia: Resultados da Pesquisa na Argentina, Brasil, Espanha e Uruguai [Public Perceptions of Science: Results from Research in Argentina, Brazil, Spain and Uruguay]. Campinas: UNI-CAMP/FAPESP.
46.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
