Upstream public engagement with new science and technology is considered important but challenging. This article shows how engagement events are embedded in broader institutional and cultural contexts. By studying two different cases of upstream engagement in nanotechnology, we demonstrate how existing institutional responsibilities and cultural repertoires contribute much to the productivity of actual engagement events. Insight into these wider world dynamics will help science communicators (or event organizers) foster reflection and deliberation among relevant actors about whether and how upstream public engagement can have an impact on the governance of new science and technology.
BarbenB.FisherE.SelinC.GustonD. (2007). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement and integration. In HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WacjmanJ. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979-1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
2.
BickerstaffK.LorenzoniI.JonesM.PidgeonN. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 474-500.
3.
BoeninkM.SwierstraT.StemerdingD. (2010). Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(2), 1-38.
4.
BurgessJ.ChilversJ. (2006). Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Science and Public Policy, 33, 713-728.
5.
ChilversJ. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35, 283-310.
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research & Council conclusions on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-apr09_en.pdf
11.
DaviesS. R.McCallieE.SimsonssonE.. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public understanding of science, 18, 338-353.
DoridotF. (2010, September). Contributions and limits of the French national public debate on nanotechnology. Paper presented at the second annual conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany. Abstract retrieved from http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/philosophie_nanobuero/snet/text/abstracts.pdf
18.
DortmansK.SwierstraT. (2013). Maintaining reasonableness: How facilitators can improve the quality of public deliberation on new and emerging science and technology. In KonradK.Van LenteH.CoenenC.DijkstraA.MilburnC. (Eds.), Shaping emerging technologies: Governance innovation, discourse (pp. 21-35). Berlin, Germany: IOS Press.
19.
DoubledayR. (2007). Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 211-227.
20.
EmeryS. B.MulderH. A. J.FrewerL. J. (2014). Maximizing the policy impacts of public engagement: A European study. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(3), 421-444 doi:10.1177/0162243914550319
21.
European Commission. (2008). Public engagement in science (No. EUR 23334). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
FeltU.SchumannS.SchwarzC.StrassnigM. (2014). Technology of imagination: A card based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research, 14, 233-251.
24.
FisherE.MahajanR. L.MitchamC. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 485-496.
25.
FisherE.O’RourkeM.EvansR.KennedyE. B.GormanM. B.SeagerT. P. (2015). Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 39-61. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
26.
FisherE.RipA. (2013). Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In OwenR.HeintzM.BessantJ. (Eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 165-184). Chichester, England: Wiley.
27.
GarudR.AhlstromD. (1997). Technology assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 25-48.
28.
GenusA.Rogers-HaydenT. (2005). Genetic engineering in Aotearoa, New Zealand: A case of opening up or closing down debate? In LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 244-248). London, England: Zed Books.
29.
GovenJ. (2006). Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31, 565-598. doi:10.1177/0162243906289612
30.
HagendijkR. (2005). Science, technology and governance in Europe (STAGE): Challenges of public engagement (Report No. HPSE-CT2001-50003). Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
31.
HajerM.HoutermanG. (1985). Energy policy and democratization. Intermediar, 21(29), 19-27. (Article in Dutch)
HanssenL.LangeslagM.VosT.WalhoutB. (2011). Een Reflectieve Analyse van de Maatschappelijke Dialoog Nanotechnologie [A reflective analysis of the Dutch Societal Dialogue on Nanotechnology]. The Hague, Netherlands: Rathenau Instituut.
34.
HorstM.IrwinA. (2010). Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science, 40, 105-126. doi:10.1177/0306312709341500
35.
IrwinA. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23, 71-76. doi:10.1177/0963662513510646
36.
JasanoffS. (2004). Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy, 31, 90-94.
37.
KrabbenborgL. (2012). The potential of national public engagement exercises: Evaluating the case of the recent Dutch Societal Dialogue on nanotechnology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Societies, 10, 27-44.
38.
KrabbenborgL. (2013a). Dramatic rehearsal on the societal embedding of the lithium chip. In SwierstraT.Van der BurgS. (Eds.), Ethics on the laboratory floor: Towards a cooperative ethics for the development of responsible technology. New York, NY: Palgrave/MacMillan.
39.
KatzE.SolomonF.MeeW.LovelR. (2009). Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: A case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 531-545. doi:10.1177/0963662507082016
40.
KrabbenborgL. (2013b). DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: An occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. NanoEthics, 7(1), 45-54.
41.
KrabbenborgL. (2013c). The involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: Creating productive spaces for interaction (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
42.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279-297.
43.
MacnaghtenP.DaviesS.KearnesM. (2010). Narrative and public engagement: Some findings from the DEEPEN project. In Von SchombergR.DaviesS. (Eds.), Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: Options for framing public policy (pp. 11-29). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
44.
MacnaghtenP.KearnesM.WynneB. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27, 268-291.
45.
MaienscheinJ.SunderlandM.AnkenyR. A.RobertJ. S. (2008). The ethos and ethics of translational research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 43-51. doi:10.1080/15265160802109314
46.
MalschI. (2011). Onwards responsibly with nanotechnology (Interview with Professor Peter Nijkamp; Current Trends in Communicating Nanoethics) [Web article]. Available from NanoEthicsBank database.
47.
MarresN. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Study of Science, 37, 759-780.
48.
MarrisC.JolyP. B.RipA. (2008). Interactive technology assessment in the real world: Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 77-100.
49.
MensJ. (2008). Nanotechnology? What should environmental organizations do? (Report of workshop organized by The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment). Utrecht, Netherlands: The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment.
NowotnyH. (2007). How many policy rooms are there?Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 479-490.
52.
NowotnyH. (2014). Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 16-20.
53.
O’DohertyK.EinsiedelE. (Eds.). (2012). Public engagement and emerging technologies. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
54.
OwenR.MacnaghtenP.StilgoeJ.GormanM.FisherE.GustonD. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In OwenR.BessantJ.HeitzM. (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27-50). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
PfersdorfS. P. (2012). Governing nanotechnology through stakeholder dialogues: The example of the German NanoKommission. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 10, 44-60.
57.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2005). Public engagements on GM and nanotechnology: Nick Pidgeon and Tee Rogers-Hayden weigh up the differences. Science and Public Affairs, June, 14-15.
58.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”?Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210.
59.
PowellM. C.ColinM. (2008). Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. Science Communication, 30, 126-136. doi:10.1177/1075547008320520
60.
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Government]. (2006). Vision document: Nanotechnologieen: Van klein naar groots (29 338 No. 54). The Hague, Netherlands: Author.
61.
Rijksoverheid [Dutch Government]. (2008). Action plan for nanotechnology. The Hague, Netherlands: Author.
RipA. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10, 17. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4
64.
RipA. (2012). Course Text: Tools for analysis of, and reflection on, controversies: Illustrated by the Colmar GM field test trajectory and more generally, the dialogue between science and society. Master’s Course ‘Espaces, Ressources, Milieux’, AgroParis Tech.
RipA.Shelley-EganC. (2010). Positions and responsibilities in the “real” world of nanotechnology. In Von SchombergR.DaviesS. R. (Eds.), Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies, options for framing public policy (pp. 31-38). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
67.
RipA.TalmaA. S. (1998). Antagonistic patterns and new technologies. In DiscoC.van der MeulenB. (Eds.), Getting new technologies together (pp. 299-323). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
68.
RobinsonD. K. R. (2010). Constructive technology assessment of newly emerging nanotechnologies: Experiments in interactions (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/74640/1/thesis_D_Robinson.pdf
69.
Rogers-HaydenT.PidgeonN. (2006). Reflecting opon the UK’s Citizens’ Jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 3(2), 167-178.
70.
Rogers-HaydenT. (2010). Upstream engagement. In PriestS. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (Vol. 2, p. 925). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
RossK. (2007). Providing “Thoughtful Feedback”: Public participation in the regulation of Australia’s first genetically modified food crop. Science and Public Policy, 34, 213-225.
72.
Shelley-EganC. (2011). Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Enschede, Netherlands: Ipskamp Drukkers.
73.
StilgoeJ.LockeS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154
74.
StilgoeJ.OwenR.MacnaghtenP. (2013). Developing a framework of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568-1580.
75.
StirlingA. (2008). “Opening up” and “Closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 262-294.
76.
SwidlerA. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
77.
SwierstraT.RipA. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics, 1, 3-20.
78.
SwierstraT.Te MolderH. (2012). Risk and soft impacts. In RoeserS.HillerbrandR.SandinP.PetersonM. (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 1050-1066). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
79.
Te MolderH. (2011). Beyond happy science and grim technology: Science communication in an interactional perspective. Inaugural Lecture, University of Twente.
80.
ThorpeC.GregoryJ. (2010). Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19, 273-301.
81.
Van OudheusdenM.De ZutterH. (2012). Contesting co-inquiry.Science Communication, 34(1), 84-114. doi:10.1177/1075547011408926
82.
Van EstR.Van EijndhovenJ.AartsW.LoeberA. (2002). The Netherlands: Seeking to involve wider public in technology assessment. In JossS.BelluciS. (Eds.), Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives (pp. 108-125). London, England: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
83.
VerhoeffR. P.WaarloA. J. (2011). Good intentions, stubborn practice: A critical appraisal of a public event on cancer genomics. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3, 1-24. doi:10.10180/21548455.2011.610573
84.
VickermanR. (2007). Can business strategy influence policy cycles? In MacárioR.ViegasJ. M.HensherD. A. (Eds.), Competition and ownership in land passenger transport (pp. 215-229). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
85.
Von SchombergR. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In DusseldopM.BeecroftR. (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer methoden (pp. 39-61). Wiesbaden, Germany: Vs Verlag.
86.
Von SchombergR. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In OwenR.HeintzM.BessantJ. (Eds.), Responsible innovation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
87.
WicksonF.WynneB. (2012). Ethics of science for policy in the environmental governance of biotechnology: Mon810 maize in Europe. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15, 321-340.
88.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos.
89.
WynneB. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445-481.
90.
WynneB. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
91.
WynneB. (2007). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 491-503.
