- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders' constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 12 (2):67-79 (2012)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnologies – engaging differently? [REVIEW]Tee Rogers-Hayden, Alison Mohr & Nick Pidgeon - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):123-130.
Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
A question of balance or blind faith?: Scientists' and science policymakers' representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies. [REVIEW]Alan Petersen & Alison Anderson - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (3):243-256.
Avoiding empty rhetoric: Engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Deliberating risks under uncertainty: Experience, trust, and attitudes in a swiss nanotechnology stakeholder discussion group.Regula Valérie Burri - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):143-154.
Engaging Narratives and the Limits of Lay Ethics: Introduction. [REVIEW]Alfred Nordmann & Phil Macnaghten - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (2):133-140.
Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement.Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler - 2010 - Minerva 48 (3):219-238.
Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies.Haico te Kulve & Arie Rip - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):699-714.
Analytics
Added to PP
2012-02-29
Downloads
85 (#653,938)
6 months
13 (#895,072)
2012-02-29
Downloads
85 (#653,938)
6 months
13 (#895,072)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The ethical and social imperatives of dialogue for public engagement in technoscience: trends in AsiaPacific governance.Tomiko Yamaguchi, Karen Cronin & Darryl Macer - 2012 - Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 12 (2):63-65.
References found in this work
Science, social theory and public knowledge.Alan Irwin - 2003 - Philadelphia: Open University Press. Edited by Mike Michael.
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2005 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 30 (2):251-290.
Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations.Graeme A. Hodge & Diana M. Bowman - 2007 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 27 (2):118-132.
Public Expectations of Gene Therapy: Scientific Futures and Their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship.Maja Horst - 2007 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 32 (2):150-171.
Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies.Rene von Schomberg (ed.) - 2010 - Publications Office of the European Union.
Try MATCHA Writer if you're interested in citing directly from PhilPapers and certifying your authorship.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation