This article presents a personal reflection on the evolution of thinking about public engagement with science in the UK, with a particular emphasis on the experience with nanotechnology.
BodmerW (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
2.
JonesRAL (2008) When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology3: 578.
3.
JonesRAL (2011) Introduction: Public engagement in an evolving science policy landscape.In: BennettDJJenningsRC (eds) Successful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–14.
4.
KammenDMNemetGF (2005) Reversing the incredible shrinking energy R&D budget. Issues in Science and Technology (Fall): 84–88.
5.
KellyK (2010) What Technology Wants. New York: Viking.
6.
NightingalePMartinP (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends in Biotechnology22(11): 564–569.
7.
NordmannA (2007) If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics1(1): 31.
8.
PolanyiM (1962) The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva1: 54–74.
9.
Research Information Network. (2012) Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (Finch Report). July2012. Available at: www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/(accessed 5 March 2013).
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology Human Values33(2): 262–294.
