Departing from experiences at a recent conference on Science in Dialogue, the paper reflects on the significance of the closure of the Danish Board of Technology as a government funded institution. It is argued that the lack of active support from the Danish public might be an unanticipated consequence of the Board’s successful institutionalisation.
BlokA (2007) Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 163–182.
2.
CohenL (1992) Anthem. On: The Future [album]. Leonard Cohen Stranger Music, Inc (BMI).
3.
EinsiedelEF (2002) Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science11: 315–331.
4.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
5.
HedgecoeAMartinP (2003) The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science33(3): 327–364.
6.
HorstM (2010) Collective closure? Public debate as the solution to controversies about science and technology. Acta Sociologica53(3): 195–211.
7.
HorstMIrwinA (2010) Nations at ease with radical knowledge. Social Studies of Science40(1): 105–126.
8.
JensenCB (2005) Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology: On experiments in democracy. Acta Sociologica48(3): 221–235.
9.
KlüwerL (1995) Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In: JossSDurantJ (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum, pp. 41–49.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297.
12.
LundABHorstM (1999) Den offentlige debat – mål, middel eller mantra. København: Fremad.
13.
MarresN (2005) Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In: LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 208–217.
14.
MejlgaardN (2009) The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy36(6): 483–496.
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
17.
VäliverronenE (2004) Stories of the ‘medicine cow’: Representations of future promises in media discourse. Public Understanding of Science13(4): 363–377.
