This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662507082016v1 18/5/531    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Katz, E. Articles by Lovel, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research

¹ Evie Katz is an honorary research fellow in the School of Social Sciences at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
² Fiona Solomon is Director – Standards Development for the Responsible Jewellery Council
³ Wendy Mee is a lecturer in the Anthropology and Sociology Program of the School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne
⁴ Roy Lovel is a scientist at CSIRO Minerals Division, Clayton South, Vic., Australia

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

This paper examines the prospects for integrating social context questions within science and technology research and development governance. While the use of public engagement to investigate social aspects of emerging technologies is increasingly accepted, incorporating social understandings into research and development processes is far less developed. The paper outlines two Australian public engagement workshops in the social issues of nanotechnologies, and a third workshop with nanoscientists, which explored governance options for incorporating social context questions within research processes. Our research suggests that in Australia we are still some distance from integrating social issues into nanotechnology research and development governance. In part, this is because the difficulties of prediction and control of nanotechnologies, together with particular characteristics of scientific cultures and institutions, make both prospects and outcomes of integration difficult to assess.

First published on January 21, 2009, doi:10.1177/0963662507082016

Public Understanding of Science 2009;18:531.

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?