SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(172.6Kb)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-224411

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry

[journal article]

Rogers-Hayden, Tee
Pidgeon, Nick

Abstract

In response to the impetus that is gathering in the UK for upstream public engagement, we analyze the impacts of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report of 2004 on Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. The paper presents an analysis of 24 interviews wit... view more

In response to the impetus that is gathering in the UK for upstream public engagement, we analyze the impacts of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report of 2004 on Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. The paper presents an analysis of 24 interviews with stakeholders to the nanotechnology debate. It uses these to discuss the inquiry process and the recommendations contained within the report, as well as to explore and critique the notion of “upstream.” We find broad support for the inquiry, which was positioned by many stakeholders itself as upstream, primarily because of its broad framing and wide stakeholder involvement. A number of both explicit and implicit upstream elements are also contained within its recommendations. However, the interviews also suggest that the notion of upstream engagement is a contested concept with a range of associated dilemmas and tensions. In drawing out some of the promise and perils of moving public debate upstream, the paper concludes that there is a risk of merely replacing the perceived deficit in public understanding of science with a perceived deficit in public engagement with science.... view less

Document language
English

Publication Year
2007

Page/Pages
p. 345-364

Journal
Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2007) 3

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506076141

Status
Postprint; peer reviewed

Licence
PEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.