Science and democracy
Source abstract
Abstract
The future of nanotechnology depends on public acceptance, says Chris Toumey, so the nanotechnology community needs to listen to public opinion.
The source flagged this abstract for review. Check formulas and completeness against the original publication.
Source: openaire · Quality: needs review · Source record ↗
Source flags: short_text
Source flags: short_text
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Science, Research, and Medicine · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Biotechnology and Related Fields
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (13)
Show source-provided references
1. The Public Understanding of Science (The Royal Society, London, 1985).
2. Wynne, B. Public Understanding of Science 1, 37–43 (1992).10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/008 ↗
3. Jones, R. The Nanotechnology Engagement Group, Policy Report 1 (Sheffield, Involve, 2006); www.involving.org/negreports .
4. Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (The Royal Society, London, 2004); www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm .
5. Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgeon, N. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 3, 167–178 (2006).
6. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. & Wilsdon, J. Governing at the Nanoscale (London, Demos, 2006).
7. Miller, J. Public Understanding of Science 13, 273–294 (2004).
8. Toumey, C. Conjuring Science 28–31 (Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1996).
9. Kleinman, D. in Science, Technology, and Democracy (ed. Kleinman, D.) 139–165 (SUNY, Albany, New York 2000).
10. Gaskell, G. et al. Science 310, 1908–09 (2005).10.1126/science.1119444 ↗
11. Lee, C., Scheufele, D. & Lewenstein, B. Science Commun. 27, 240–267 (2005)10.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
12. Cobb, M. & Macoubrie, J. J. Nanoparticle Res. 6, 395–405 (2004).10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
13. Guston, D. & Sarewitz, D. Sci. Soc. 24, 93–109 (2002).