Nanotechnology: a new regime for the public in science?

Bensaude‐Vincent, Bernadette

doi:10.1590/s1678-31662012000500005

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…), scholars writing on popular science have used the term more recently in a rather general way to capture social apparatuses at work, for example, in evaluating or “benchmarking” science or in determining modes of public participation in technological choices (e.g. Bensaude-Vincent 2009, 364; 2012, 87f. ).…”

Section: Cultural Continuities and Political Breaks: The Workings Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Popular Science as CulturalDispositif: On the German Way of Science Communication in the Twentieth Century

Schirrmacher

2013

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentGerman twentieth-century history is characterized by stark changes in the political system and the momentous consequences of World Wars I and II. However, instead of uncovering specific kinds or periods of “Kaiserreich science,” “Weimar science,” or “Nazi science” together with their public manifestations and in such a way observing a narrow link between popular science and political orders, this paper tries to exhibit some remarkable stability and continuity in popular science on a longer scale. Thanks to the rich German history of scientific leadership in many fields, broad initiatives for science popularization, and a population and economy open to scientific progress, the media offered particularly rich popular science content, which was diversified for various audiences and interests. Closer consideration of the format, genre, quality, and quantity of popular science, and of the uses and value audiences attributed to it, along with their respective evolution, reveals infrastructures underpinning science communication. Rather than dealing with specific discourses, the conditions of science communication are at the center of this article. Therefore I focus on the institutions, rules, laws, and economies related to popular science, as well as on the philosophical, moral, and national propositions related to it, and also on the interactions among this ensemble of rather heterogeneous elements. This approach allows a machinery of popular scientific knowledge to be identified, in Foucauldian terms a dispositif, one which is of a particularly cultural nature.

show abstract

Section: Cultural Continuities and Political Breaks: The Workings Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Popular Science as CulturalDispositif: On the German Way of Science Communication in the Twentieth Century

Schirrmacher

2013

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2009-2010, the French government convened panels of experts for a series of public debates on nanotechnology issues. However, the debates were criticized by activists and even opposed by civil society organizations that had relevant expertise Bensaude-Vincent, 2012). In their view, none of the fundamentally important questions were being opened to debate-such as the potential encroachment of nanotechnologies on private life.…”

Section: Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Materials sovereignty: Pathways for shaping nanotechnology design

Kokai

Iles

2020

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People in contemporary industrial societies encounter countless novel materials that did not exist previously, many of which present risks to health and environment. In this article, we build on the concept of “materials sovereignty” as the right of people to use and be surrounded by environmentally benign, non-toxic, and renewing materials in their everyday lives. As a rights-based approach, materials sovereignty may help change the politics of governing materials. We suggest that social movements that explicitly base interventions into design on materials sovereignty may be better able to gain traction in changing industrial production. We consider the case of nanotechnology as a particularly challenging field for social movement intervention. We review several pathways that have been used by social movement organizations in attempts to influence the development of nanomaterials, but which have met with limited success. We more closely examine three participatory pathways through which social movements could intervene more directly into material design: participatory technology assessment, collaboration with industry, and co-design. We identify three key elements of materials sovereignty: participatory knowledge systems, which create multi-directional flows of knowledge and agency; the embedding of citizen voices into design processes; and building accountability systems. Of the pathways we examine here, co-design appears to be the most promising from a theoretical and ethical perspective, but there remain significant institutional and organizational challenges for bringing it into practice.

show abstract

Responsible Research Is Not Good Science: Divergences Inhibiting the Enactment of RRI in Nanosafety

Hove

Wickson

2017

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotechnology: a new regime for the public in science?

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

Popular Science as CulturalDispositif: On the German Way of Science Communication in the Twentieth Century

Popular Science as CulturalDispositif: On the German Way of Science Communication in the Twentieth Century

Materials sovereignty: Pathways for shaping nanotechnology design

Responsible Research Is Not Good Science: Divergences Inhibiting the Enactment of RRI in Nanosafety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About