Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macnaghten, P.
Right arrow Articles by Wynne, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?

Phil Macnaghten

Matthew B. Kearnes

Brian Wynne

Lancaster University

In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity to build in a robust role for the social sciences in a technology that remains at an early, and hence undetermined, stage of development. We examine policy dynamics in both the United States and United Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We then set out a prospective agenda for the social sciences and its potential in the future shaping of nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research.

Key Words: nanotechnology • governance • upstream public engagement • imaginaries

Science Communication, Vol. 27, No. 2, 268-291 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281531
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
R. Valerie Burri
Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland
Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 498 - 511.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
J. Landau, C. R. Groscurth, L. Wright, and C. M. Condit
Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology
Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 325 - 337.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
D. M. Bowman, G. A. Hodge, and P. Binks
Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, December 1, 2007; 27(6): 435 - 445.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyHome page
D. M. Bowman and G. A. Hodge
Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations
Bulletin of Science Technology Society, April 1, 2007; 27(2): 118 - 132.
[Abstract] [PDF]