Nanotechnology Governance Accountability and Democracy in New Modes of Regulation and De-liberation

Science, Technology & Innovation Studies

Vol. 5, No. 2, December 2009

ISSN: 1861-3675

STI

Studies

STI

Studieswww.sti-studies.de

Nanotechnology Governance

Accountability and Democracy in New Modes of Regulation and De-liberation

Monika Kurath (University of Basel, Switzerland)

received 5 Sept. 2009, received in revised form 29 Nov. 2009, accepted 18 Jan. 2010

Abstract

Current discourses in science, technology and innovation policy describe a shift fromformal, governmental, or statutory regulation to non-hierarchical, informal, and co-operative self-regulatory approaches. They narrate a turn from government to gov-ernance, described as a “governance turn.” Governance as a new and popular modeof regulation, deliberation and shared responsibility is often linked to favored at-tributes of science and technology development, and policy making such as democ-racy and responsibility. This article analyzes the connection between governanceand ideas of accountable and democratic science and technology development inthe case of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. For this purpose, soft law mea-sures, self-regulatory initiatives, and public engagement projects in Europe and theU.S. were analyzed using the concept of social robustness (Nowotny et al. 2001).

The study showed that most of the analyzed governance approaches and engage-ment projects only partially met aspects of social robustness, and that the gover-nance and deliberative turn in science and technology policy has not led, so far,to greater democracy and responsibility in nanoscience and nanotechnology devel-opment. As a consequence, the delegation of techno-political decision making toless socially robust governance approaches might lead to a vacuum in science andtechnology policy and affect not only academic knowledge production but also theinnovative force of a society.1

1 I’d like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding this project, the threeeditors of Science, Technology & Innovation Studies—particularly Johannes Weyer and twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and remarks—and Christopher Ritter for edit-ing the text.

88 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

1 “New governance ofscience”?

The analysis of policy documents inthe nanosciences and nanotechnolo-gies (NST)—often subsumed under theterm nanotechnology2—points to inter-esting aspects of perceived risks, reg-ulatory need, and the question, whichsocietal actors should become active inregulatory issues and decision-makingin science and technology policy?

“Current legislation covers in principle thepotential health, safety and environmen-tal risks in relation to nanomaterials.”(Commission of the European Commu-nities CEC 2008, 3-4)

“Public health, environmental and con-sumer protection require that those in-volved in the development of nanotech-nologies–including researchers, develop-ers, producers, and distributors–addressany potential risk, as early as possible.”(CEC 2004, 22)

“In a first phase, self-responsibility ofindustry is of high significance.” (CH-Bundesrat 2008, 3, 10-11, translationMK)

“We believe that a constructive and proac-tive debate should be undertaken now.We recommend that the Government ini-tiate adequately funded public dialoguearound the development of nanotech-nologies.” (RS&RAE 2004, xi)

“Experiments and innovations in publicengagement with science have the po-tential to contribute to a more account-able science and a healthier democracy.”(Wilsdon 2005, 1)

“Specific recommendation on how gov-ernment and industry could improve trust[is] the provision of more information tothe public.” (Macoubrie 2005, 4)

2 The term nanotechnology is ambiguouslyused for all kinds of small molecular re-search, development, production and futur-istic visions (cf. Lösch 2006). The term isalso framed as an “empty signifier” (Wullwe-ber, 2008), an “umbrella term” (Rip and Voss2008), a “folk theory” (Rip, 2006), a “fundingstrategy” (cf. Kurath and Maasen 2006) or a“lack of reason” (Schummer 2009).

These quotations frame the NST-relatedtechno-political discourse in terms offour principles:

1. Policymakers agree that current leg-islation mainly covers the poten-tial health, safety and environmentalrisks of nanomaterials. In general,they do not see an immediate needfor additional legislation.

2. NST regulation is mainly framedin terms of governance, meaningnon-hierarchical, informal, network-oriented, and cooperative forms ofruling such as soft law3 and self-regulation. Hereby, the regulatoryresponsibility is shifted to the actorsinvolved in the research, develop-ment, production, retail and disposalprocess of NST.

3. Public engagement is assigned highsignificance. However, the ques-tion of whether the approach is tobe mutual-learning or information-oriented, is an issue (see, for exam-ple, the Wilsdon and Macoubrie cita-tions above).

4. A connection is made betweengovernance and democracy thatlinks self-regulation, soft law andpublic engagement with favorableattributes such as accountability,stewardship, safety, sustainability,acceptance, public trust, democracyand the idea of responsible technol-ogy development.

These observations are not new. Sincethe 1970s, political scientists have ob-served a shift from hierarchical to morecooperative forms of regulation (Mayntz1996). They narrate a turn from gov-ernment to governance (Rhodes 1997)

3 The term "soft law" is used with regardto quasi-legal instruments not having anylegally binding force, or whose binding isweaker than that of traditional statutorylaw—which in contrast to soft law is referredto as "hard law". Originally, the term "softlaw" was mainly used for international law,although currently it has been transferred toother branches of domestic law as well, suchas voluntary legal schemes by public author-ities (cf. Kirton and Treblicock 2004; Nasser2008). The term “self-regulation” will be usedwhen societal actors are setting standardsand monitoring compliance in the interest ofpublic protection, (cf. Boekaerts 2005).

Monika Kurath: Nanotechnology Governance 89

in which governance measures wereframed as a substitute for statutoryregulation within the context of ne-oliberalism and questions of effective-ness and efficiency of policy-making(Mayntz, 1996). Recent studies charac-terize this turn, depending on their ana-lytic frame, as either a governance (Bor-ràs and Conzelmann, 2007, Rose 1996),deliberative (Hagendijk and Irwin 2006,Irwin, 2006, Kearnes and Wynne 2007),or qualitative (Kearnes 2009) turn, oras a shift from a “modernist to post-modernist form of statecraft” (Gottweisand Petersen 2008).

A further framing of those new modesof governance by ideas of account-ability, responsible technology develop-ment, and an increase in democracyhas been described for the field of NST(see Kearnes and Wynne 2007). In thisway, soft law, self-regulation, and pub-lic engagement have been framed asmeans for technology development thatis—in Nowotny’s words—socially robust(Nowotny et al. 2001, 167).

Soft law and self-regulatoryapproachesThis shift from statutory or “hard law”federal regulation (in the cases of theUS, Germany, and Switzerland) to “softlaw,” self-regulatory approaches hasbeen described in science and technol-ogy policy studies as a “new governanceof science” (cf. Gibbons et al. 1994, Ir-win 2006, Barben 2005, Felt et al. 2008,Lengwiler and Simon, 2009, Weingart2001). Regulation of innovative, uncer-tain emerging technologies was reinter-preted as a task that no longer con-cerns traditional governmental institu-tions, but is instead negotiated at theinterfaces between science, politics, in-dustry and civil society (Miller and Rose2008).

Public understanding of science andupstream engagementThinking about public engagement inscience and technology-related deci-sion-making processes4 traditionally

4 On public engagement and its popular-ization see e.g. (Hagendijk and Irwin 2006,

has been done in terms of “public un-derstanding of science” (PUS). Relyingupon a commonly assumed expert-laydivide, PUS views public engagementmainly in terms of information, edu-cation, and dialogue with the public.It assumes that increased informationand education of the public leads toincreased trust and acceptance of sci-ence and technology. However, the PUSconcept has been broadly criticized asa “deficit model” and “ill-defined” (cf.Wynne 1995, Irwin and Wynne 1996,Hagendijk 2004, Jasanoff 2005).5

In contrast to PUS, a newer concep-tualization of public engagement inthe early stages of technology devel-opment has emerged that is referredto as “upstream engagement” (Wilsdonand Willis 2004).6 Upstream engage-ment aims at treating the public as anequal and regarding its knowledge ina mutual-learning-oriented way. Thisis considered central to emerging sci-ence and technology-related decision-making processes, and is framed asa more democratic science-society in-teraction and way of making sciencepolicy (RS&RAE, 2004). Following theRS&RAE (2004) report and a related Na-ture editorial (Nature 2004), upstreamengagement became a fashionable termin science communication. A variety ofdeliberative and upstream engagement-related projects and communicative ac-tivities were initiated and advertised as

Jasanoff 2005, Wilsdon and Willis 2004, Ha-gendijk 2005, Abels and Bora 2004).5 The focus on NST-related public dialoguevaries between the analyzed countries. Asan example it is not as intense in the U.S. asit has been in the EU, particularly in Britainand in the U.S., the public understanding ofscience (PUS) approach is still prevalent, ase.g. the last quotation on page 2 (Macoubrie2005, 4) showed.6 Particularly in Britain, a generic deficit ofpublic trust in science, technology, and po-litical representatives has been broadly rec-ognized (cf. Gaskell et al. 2004, Gaskell et al.2005, Wynne 2001). Here, public controver-sies involving nuclear power, GMO, and BSE,have resulted in an early-stage initiation ofdialogues, deliberation, and public engage-ment in the field of NST, with the aim of in-creasing public confidence (Hagendijk and Ir-win 2006).

90 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

another democratic turn in the techno-political discourse (Kearnes et al. 2006b,see also Kurath and Gisler 2009).

Questions

This article focuses on the correla-tion of governance with accountabil-ity and democracy in the nanosciencesand nanotechnologies. A selectionof 14 self-regulatory and soft lawschemes in NST, also described asregulatory-oriented governance (Sec-tion 3), and six public engagementprojects, termed, ‘deliberation orientedgovernance’(Section 4), will be ana-lyzed regarding their social robustness.Among the questions asked are these:

1. Do the analyzed governanceschemes and projects show con-crete and robust approaches, out-comes, and results, or have theybeen restricted to declarations of in-tent only?

2. Have they established robust strate-gies regarding current policy dis-courses, the enforceability of theiroutcomes, and their translation intothe political process?

3. Have they addressed the acceptabil-ity of their own approaches, meth-ods, and outcomes?

4. Have they considered external socialknowledge and how they engagedit?

5. Were they subject to public consul-tation and established external eval-uation, testing, and improvement?

Socially robust knowledge

The concept of social robustness (No-wotny et al. 2001) was originally devel-oped for the analysis of science and aca-demic knowledge production in modernknowledge societies (Weingart 2001,Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al.2001). It was based on the emergenceof both a new mode of knowledge pro-duction and an increased permeabilityof the societal domains of state and sci-ence (Nowotny et al. 2001, 166).

Social robustness also was based onthe observation of an intensified con-textualization in academic knowledge

production: scientists have increasinglybeen influenced and motivated by ex-ternal factors such as their contribu-tion to innovation, solving environmen-tal, ethical, and societal problems, andto policy advice. This led to a shiftfrom weakly to strongly contextualizedknowledge production (Nowotny et al.2001, 166). Strong contextualizationof a scientific field or research domainleads to high social robustness of theknowledge it is likely to produce. So-cial robustness has been framed by fivecriteria (Nowotny et al. 2001, 167):

1. Social robustness is relational, or inother words, contextualized

2. Social robustness describes a pro-cess that generates stability

3. Socially robust knowledge is basedon its acceptability by individuals,groups and societies

4. Socially robust knowledge is in-filtrated and improved by socialknowledge

5. Socially robust knowledge is subjectto frequent testing, feedback, andimprovement, or evaluation

Socially robust regulationThe openness of social robustness wellmatches the analytical needs of a studyof societal processes or activities be-yond science and academic knowledgeproduction that include regulation, de-liberation, public engagement and gov-ernance. Regulatory and deliberativeoriented governance approaches couldbe more socially robust if they considerand include external contexts, generatestability, have been infiltrated and im-proved by social knowledge, and aresubject to frequent testing, feedback,and improvement.

The criteria framing social robustness—contextualization, stability, acceptabil-ity, social knowledge and evaluationvia feedback, testing and improvementstructures (Nowotny et al. 2001, 167)—are open enough for this transition offocus. Their applicability to gover-nance approaches makes social robust-ness suitable for this study’s analysis ofaccountability and democracy of gov-ernance, self-regulatory measures, soft


law approaches, and public engage-ment projects.

A range of governance measures inthe NST7 were chosen for the analy-sis of these issues within an overar-ching qualitative comparative analysisof NST-related policy discourses in theUS and Europe, including the EuropeanUnion member states Germany andBritain, and nonmember state Switzer-land.8 Methods consisted of qualita-tive, semi-structured interviews (Lam-neck 1988) with actors involved in sci-ence, politics, industry, and civil soci-ety organizations, as well as the analy-sis of relevant policy documents and as-sessment reports.9 The analysis of pub-lic engagement projects is based on anearlier study conducted in 2007 (see Ku-rath and Gisler 2009).

2 Criteria for the analysis ofsocial robustness

Analysis of regulatory and delibera-tion oriented governance schemes andprojects, rely upon the following aspectsof the concept of social robustness:

7 On the establishment of NST related gov-ernance measures, see e.g. (Maasen, 2009,RS&RAE 2004, Wilsdon and Willis 2004,Wilsdon 2005, Kearnes et al. 2006a, Nature2004, Kearnes and Wynne 2007, Barben etal. 2008, Kearnes and Rip 2009, Lösch et al.2008, and for a general overview Kaiser et al.2009).8 The aim of this study was a transatlanticcomparison. A direct comparison of theUS and the European Union’s supranationalconfederation of states might produce episte-mological difficulties, as important practicesand processes take place on national levelsin the EU as well. Therefore, three Europeanstates that are leaders in NST, Britain, Ger-many, and the EU nonmember Switzerland,were included in the analysis and subsumedunder “Europe.”9 Within this study a total of 56 interviewswere conducted in the US, Britain, Germany,Switzerland, the EU, and the OECD, and weretranscribed and analyzed. They focused onthe political discourse, regulatory issues ofNST, and the specific perspective of the inter-viewed actors with regard to their organiza-tional and institutional background. Further-more, 14 experts were questioned on specificissues.

Contextualization

Contextualization is an aspect of so-cial robustness that refers to the rela-tion of governance schemes to externalcontexts. Questions will focus on theways governance has been embeddedin social, cultural, political, and historiccontexts, and their relations with cur-rent policy and technology discourses,which include environmental, health,and safety (EHS) issues. A particular fo-cus lies on regulation-oriented schemesand whether they are based on stan-dards, which means that the outcomeof the schemes is a clearly defined,comprehensible product such as safetydata, or whether the schemes have beenbased on principles, which form lesstangible and substantial commitments.Standards-based schemes yield morecomprehensible outcomes and substan-tial contributions to political, regulatory,and technology discourses.

Another specific focus is on the epis-temic basis of deliberation-orientedprojects. This leads to examining theconceptual framing of public engage-ment either in terms of upstream en-gagement (Wilsdon and Willis 2004)through mutual learning and equallyengaging citizens in science and tech-nology-related decision-making pro-cesses, or a PUS approach in which themain communicative actors persist inframing an expert-lay divide betweenscience and the public.

Stability

Stability refers to the ways in whichgovernance schemes, projects, andtheir outcomes are translated into polit-ical processes, enforceable, and estab-lished to one extent or another in re-lated policies.

Acceptability

Acceptability pertains to analysis ofwhether governance schemes andprojects build in steps or measures toconsider the societal acceptability ofthose schemes and projects, and theirmethods and outcomes.

92 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

Social knowledgeWhether governance schemes andprojects have established tools to col-lect, judge, and build in external soci-etal knowledge is analyzed, as well aswhether they have been subject to pub-lic consultation or only selected actorshave been consulted.

How social knowledge was consideredis also analyzed. This involves look-ing at whether communication was ori-ented toward education/discussion/ di-alogue, or two-way communication andmutual learning. Further communica-tive or decision-making tools such asvoting are also examined.

EvaluationFinally, frequent testing, feedback, andimprovement were analyzed, particu-larly with regard to whether projectsand schemes reflected upon their ap-proaches, methods, and outcomes.

3 The robustness of self-regulation and soft law

Fourteen selected supranational, gov-ernmental, private, and internationalNST regulatory-oriented governanceschemes were analyzed. They em-ployed voluntary and informal ap-proaches to regulation by public au-thorities, supranational or internationalbodies such as the European Commis-sion and the OECD, and self-regulatoryactivities by manufacturers, industrialassociations and civil society organiza-tions such as environmental and con-sumer groups (cf. the appendix with Ta-ble 3, which describes the aims and re-sults of the approaches, and Table 4,which analyses the approaches regard-ing the criteria of social robustness).Table 1 presents the final rating of thesocial robustness of the approaches,which are analyzed in more detail be-low.

3.1 Social robustness rating

This analysis shows that most of theself-regulatory and soft law approachesonly partially meet aspects of social ro-bustness and ideas of a robust science

and technology development. Only afew produced concrete and measurableoutcomes.

Contextualization

Most schemes rated high or medium intheir contextualization.

Both supranational EU schemes metcertain aspects of social robustness.Both are principle-based, which meansthey declare the intention or invitemember states to follow certain, moreor less specified principles or ideals inthe promotion, research, and develop-ment of NST. Both EU schemes are re-lated to currently debated issues such assafety, sustainability, and ethics in re-search.

Among the governmental schemes, twoare reporting schemes that meet cri-teria of high social robustness. Theyare based on standards, which lead todefined outcomes such as safety dataon manufactured nanoscale materialsand risk-related management systemsby manufacturers. The other three gov-ernmental schemes are based on prin-ciples, which makes them less robust,but they address current relevant issuessuch as risk and stakeholder engage-ment.

Among the private schemes, the EDF-DuPont Nano Risk Framework, the VCIguidelines, and the Cenarios certifica-tion system received the highest ratingsbecause they are standards-based andaddress risk. The UK Responsible NanoCode is principle-based and applies toorganizations involved in all stages ofNST development and use. With anoverarching aim of a safe and responsi-ble technology life-cycle, the principlesand outcomes of the scheme have notso far been specified and remain rathervague. The Swiss Retail Association’scode was rated partially robust for itsconcretely and comprehensively shapedprinciples and its relationship with cur-rent dialogues concerning transparencyin consumer information and productsafety.

Among the international OECDschemes, the Working Party on Man-


Table 1: Social robustness-rating of regulatory-oriented governance

Co

nte

xtu

aliz

atio

n

Sta

bilit

y

Acc

epta

bilit

y

So

cial

kno

wle

dge

Eva

luat

ion

Su

m

Supranational schemesEU Action Plan on Nanosciences andNanotechnologies 2005

0 0 -1 0 1 0

EU Code of Conduct on responsibleNano Research 2007

0 0 -1 -1 1 -1

Governmental schemesUK DEFRA Voluntary ReportingScheme 2006

1 -1 -1 1 0 0

USA EPA Nanomaterial StewardshipProgram 2008

1 -1 -1 1 0 0

German NanoCommis-sion/NanoDialogue 2006

0 -1 -1 0 -1 -3

German Nano-Initiative, Action Plan2006

0 -1 -1 0 -1 -3

Swiss Federal Action Plan “SyntheticNanomaterials” 2008

0 -1 -1 0 -1 -3

Private schemesEDF-DuPont Nano Risk Framework2007

1 0 -1 1 0 1

UK Responsible Nano Code 2008 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5German VCI Guidelines 2008 1 -1 -1 0 -1 -2German/Swiss Cenarios CertificationSystem 2008

1 0 -1 -1 1 0

Swiss Retail Association Code of Con-duct Nanotechnologies 2008

0 0 -1 0 0 -1

International schemesOECD Working Party on ManufacturedNanomaterials (WMNM) 2006

1 1 -1 -1 0 0

OECD Working Party on Nanotechnol-ogy 2007

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5

1 = meets the criterion0 = partially meets the criterion-1 = doesn’t meet the criterion/no specified aspects in this category

94 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

ufactured Nanomaterials received aslightly higher rating with regard tocontextualization, even though it isprinciple-based, because the memberstates are engaged in a program to testselected nanomaterials according to acomprehensive framework.

Stability

Most schemes received rather low rat-ings with regard to their outcomes andtheir translation into political processesand establishment in related policies.

Only one approach received a ratingabove 0: the OECD Working Partyon Manufactured Nanomaterials, whichlaunched two substantial contributionsto which member states could showcommitment on a voluntary basis. Thecommitted member states were obligedto contribute to a clearly framed andcomprehensible program: the sponsor-ship program for testing of manufac-tured nanomaterials and the databaseon research into safety of manufacturednanomaterials. A steering committeewas established to observe the proceed-ings of the working party’s projects andtheir translation into the member coun-tries’ political processes.

Nine of the schemes met certain as-pects of stability and received a rat-ing of 0. These include the EuropeanUnion’s schemes (which can apply fi-nancial pressure on member states andreviews), the U.S. Nanorisk framework,the Swiss Retailers Association’s Codeof Conduct (which was launched bycommitted organizations), and the Ce-narios Certification System (with intrin-sic obligation on certified firms). How-ever, for these scheme’s enforceabilityis still limited to manufacturers volun-tarily implementing a certification sys-tem.

Governmental action plans consistingof clearly described and verifiable aims,such as the European Union ActionPlan, met certain stability criteria withregard to contents and funding for riskresearch. However, the epistemic ba-sis of an action plan is primarily a dec-laration of intent only. If the manage-

ment of the objectives remains unspec-ified, as is the case in the German andSwiss Action Plans, those action plansremain noncommittal and less robust.

Acceptability

None of the analyzed schemes builtin any measures to consider its ownacceptability or that of the knowledgeproduced within the scheme. A fewschemes mentioned contributing to anincrease in the public acceptance ofNST, but none received a rating exceed-ing -1.

Social knowledge

Most of the analyzed approaches con-sidered external and social knowledgeto some extent.

Governmental reporting schemes re-ceived the highest social knowledge rat-ings. In addition to the consideration ofsocial knowledge of manufacturers andresearch organizations, which was theepistemic basis and the core element ofthe UK and U.S. governmental report-ing schemes, the schemes also includedexternal knowledge through consulta-tion with selected actors. The schemeswere established in close cooperationwith related agencies and included pub-lic consultation with feedback possibili-ties for concerned actors and stakehold-ers prior to launch.

The EDF-DuPont Nano Risk Frameworkwas also subject to public consulta-tion before its launch in June 2007.In April 2008, EDF and DuPont alsoorganized interactive workshops onnanorisk management in Boston andSan Francisco. Contributions from anyinterested party are encouraged on thescheme’s website.

In most cases, social knowledge re-mained confined to actor knowledge. Afew action plans and codes of conductmentioned the initiation of a dialoguewith the general public among theiraims. However, none of them made ad-ditional statements concerning the waythis aim should be implemented. In thisrespect, these schemes were rated aspartially socially robust.


In the European governmental initia-tives, each of the three action plans con-sidered knowledge of concerned actorsand stakeholders prior to or after itslaunch. While the EU action plan in-cluded the aim of organizing dialoguesand collecting comments, the Germanand the Swiss action plan consideredknowledge of concerned actors.

The German NanoDialogue was estab-lished based on the intrinsic motivationto consider social knowledge. How-ever, in its case social knowledge waslimited to actor and concerned stake-holder knowledge. The final report didnot specify to what extent knowledgeoutside the NanoCommission’s mem-bers was considered (Catenhusen et al.2008).

In Switzerland, selected actors andstakeholders of various societal do-mains contributed to a report on whichthe action plan was developed.

The private German VCI Guidelinesand the Swiss Retailers Association re-garded dialogue events with selectedactors as a basis for the development oftheir measures. However, actors wereinvolved and how they were to be se-lected was not specified on the relatedwebsites and in the reports.

None of the international schemes re-ported any consultation of social knowl-edge external to the member states’representatives. To what extent the rep-resentatives themselves consulted so-cial knowledge was not specified either.

Evaluation

The supranational schemes of the Euro-pean Union take a leading role in eval-uation.

In the action plan and the code of con-duct for responsible NST research, bi-annual reporting of the member stateswas envisaged. While the action plandescribed an indicator-based report tothe council and the parliament, the codeof conduct asks for a review of therecommendation and the extent withwhich it was adopted and applied within

the relevant organizations of the mem-ber countries. However, due to the vol-untary nature of the code it is even lessclear to what extent the member stateswill really participate in the evaluationprocess. This proposes the question, towhat extent this voluntary code can betranslated into the political process.

Among the private initiatives, the SwissCenarios Certification System forms themost robust evaluation approach. Ex-ternal evaluation of the establishmentof the required processes within thefirms applying for certification is an in-trinsic condition of a certificate system.Such systems best meet the require-ments for social robustness.

The EDF-DuPont Nano Risk Frameworktakes a leading role in this area aswell, as continued external and self-evaluation is planned. Because con-crete measures beyond publicly openstakeholder workshops and a call forcomments on its website have notyet been further specified, EDF-DuPontevaluation is rated as only partiallyrobust. The same rating was giventhe Swiss Retailers Association Codeof Conduct because it requires self-evaluation by regular member reportson the establishment of the code. Fur-thermore, the OECD Working Partyon Manufactured Nanomaterials estab-lished a steering committee to evaluatehow its work is proceeding.

3.2 Socially robust strategies? Ashort summary of the analysis

Supranational and governmentalschemesAmong the supranational and govern-mental schemes, the European Com-mission’s Action Plan and the UK andU.S. reporting schemes received thehighest social robustness ratings.

The Action Plan’s requirement thatmember states conduct indicator-basedexternal evaluation seems in particularto be highly robust. External knowledgeof selected stakeholders was obtainedin dialogues and comments, while acertain enforceability might attach towell described financial aims. However,

96 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

the way in which member states reportto the council and the parliament on aregular basis, or whether they actuallywill report at all, is not clear.

The UK and U.S. voluntary reportingschemes were rated highly contextual-ized due to their standards and risk-relatedness. They considered socialknowledge to a high degree and al-lowed for self-evaluation, but they didnot consider their acceptability. Dueto their voluntary character, they wereonly marginally translated into politicalprocesses, which turned out to be theirweakest aspects. Only a few of themanufacturing organizations voluntar-ily took the effort to compose and de-liver the necessary data. There were 13data submissions in the UK,10 11 fromindustry and two from academia; 21companies submitted reports to the U.S.program (U.S. EPA 2009). An assumedhigh rate of manufacturers not report-ing resulted in criticism of the volun-tary data reporting approaches in bothcountries (see e.g. Bergeson 2007, Bullis2008, Hanson 2008).

Private schemes

While supranational and governmen-tal schemes were rated between 0 and-3, the private schemes showed greatervariability. With an overall rating of+1, the EDF-DuPont Nano Risk Frame-work was socially robust, while at -5 theUK Responsible Nano Code met no ro-bustness criteria at all. The Nano RiskFramework is standards-based, consid-ers risk, and is strong in contextualiza-tion and the consideration of externalknowledge. Due to its voluntary ap-proach, the commitment of the launch-ing organizations, and its testing andfeedback, the scheme rated mediumin stability and consideration of socialknowledge.

The Cenarios Certification System wasrated second-best. Due to its re-liance on standards, consideration of

10 See <www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/policy.htm> (visited02.11.09).

risk, external evaluation and recertifi-cation on an annual basis, contextual-ization and evaluation were rated high.Because evaluation and recertificationare built into certification and implyenforceability—at least for the firms ap-plying for or having the certificate—itwas rated medium in stability. How-ever, Cenarios does not specify anyconsideration of social knowledge, nordoes it consider its acceptability.

The Swiss Retail Association’s codeof conduct was rated higher than thetwo other schemes of private codes orguidelines. This code specified require-ments and forces members to adopt thecode and conduct evaluation. It intendsthe establishment of stakeholder dia-logue. However, the way in which theresults of such dialogue feed forwardinto the design and content of the codewas not specified.

Although the VCI guidelines are clearlyspecified, they are entirely voluntaryand the members are neither underpressure from the Chemical IndustriesAssociation to adopt them nor sub-ject to evaluation. However, externalknowledge was consulted and consid-ered through stakeholder dialogues.

The UK Responsible Nano Code is thepoorest rated private initiative, with lowsocial robustness in each category. Thecode agreement is principle-based andnot binding in any form, not even uponthe launching organizations. The prin-ciples were rather vaguely shaped, itsacceptability is not considered, no so-cial knowledge is consulted, and evalu-ation is not specified within this code.

International schemes

Among the international schemes, theOECD working parties differed consid-erably with regard to their social robust-ness.

The Working Party on ManufacturedNanomaterials (WPMN) is socially ro-bust, particularly because its sponsor-ship program is based on comprehensi-ble standards and it is sensitive to risk.Further, the WPMN initiated a steer-ing committee that may play a role in


the political translation of results and inevaluation.

In contrast, the Working Party on Nan-otechnology did not demonstrate anysocial robustness. It specified no eval-uation, consideration of social knowl-edge or program acceptability, transla-tion into the political process, or anycontextualization with regard to a con-crete product or outcome.

ConclusionNone of the governance measures, softlaw and self-regulatory schemes turnedout to be socially robust in all as-pects. While some schemes showedquite concrete and robust approaches,others are restricted to declarations ofintent. Only a few schemes showed ro-bust strategies for consideration of cur-rent policy discourses, the enforceabil-ity of their outcomes, their translationinto the political process, public consul-tation, and external evaluation, testingand improvement of the scheme. Noneof the analyzed schemes considered ac-ceptance of its approach, methods, andoutcomes.

4 The robustness of delibe-ration and engagement

“This analysis of public engagement ordeliberative-governance projects estab-lished in NST draws upon the con-cepts of participatory technology as-sessment and upstream engagement.”It is based on an earlier study that an-alyzed six well-documented public en-gagement projects in selected countries(cf. Kurath and Gisler 2009), which re-lied upon participant observation (in theSwiss case and the UK Nanodialoguevideo screening) and a meta-analysis ofliterature reports and documents (in theother cases).

These public engagement projects in-cluded a forum event, the U.S. Nano-scale Informal Science Education (NISE)Network 2005; a citizen jury, the UKNanojury; dialogues, which include theUK Nanodialogues and the EuropeanUnion funded Nanologue project; a pub-lic event, the UK Bristol Citizen Science

project; and a focus group, the SwissPublifocus project (cf. Bell et al. 2006,Gavelin et al. 2007, Rey 2006, Singh2007, Stilgoe 2007, Türk et al. 2006),and Table 5, which describes aim andresults of the approaches, and Table 6,which analyses the approaches in termsof the criteria of social robustness. Ta-ble 2 presents the social robustness rat-ings of the approaches, which are ana-lyzed in more detail below.

4.1 Social robustness rating

While the social robustness ratings ofthe self-regulatory and soft law ap-proaches varied from +1 to -5, the rat-ings of the engagement projects variedeven more, between +3 and -5. In prin-ciple, most of the engagement projectspartially met certain aspects of socialrobustness and robust science and tech-nology development; few produced aconcrete impact.

Contextualization

Only one project—the UK Nanojury—showed high social robustness. Mostmet some aspects of social robustness,although two projects showed little orno social robustness.

The UK Nanojury was the only projectthat was conceptually oriented towardsa new framing of communicative actorsand overcoming the traditional expert-lay person divide. The main focus ofits methodological approach is to breaktraditional expert-lay frames by givingscientists the roles of witness and au-dience, and citizens that of jurors.

Apart from the Nanojury, the framing ofcommunicative actors as experts versuslay persons was more or less observ-able in all other engagement projectsdespite—as in the UK Nanodialoguesand the EU Nanologue—commitmentsto more mutual-learning-oriented fram-ing by upstream engagement.

The UK Nanodialogues, the Swiss Publi-focus, and the EU Nanologue were em-bedded in, and their products were re-lated to, current policy and technologydiscourses, mostly focusing on potential

98 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

Table 2: Social robustness rating of deliberation-oriented governance

Co

nte

xtu

aliz

atio

n

Sta

bilit

y

Acc

epta

bilit

y

So

cial

kno

wle

dge

Eva

luat

ion

Su

m

U.S. NISE Network 2005 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -4UK Nanojury 2005 1 0 0 1 1 3UK Nanodialogues 2006 0,5 1 0 0.5 1 3UK Citizen Science Bristol 2008 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5Swiss Publifocus Nanotechnology 2006 0 -1 -1 0 0 -2EU Nanologue 2005-2006 0 -1 -1 0 0 -21 = meets the criterion0 = partially meets the criterion-1 = doesn’t meet the criterion/no specified aspects in this category

risks and societal issues; their contextu-alization was therefore partial.

Both of the low-rated projects, the U.S.NISE Network and the UK Citizen Sci-ence Bristol project, did not considerrisk, safety, public health, or environ-mental issues. They were framed by atraditional PUS-based notion of educat-ing lay citizens, rather than by engagingknowledgeable citizens in engagement-based dialogue processes.

Stability

Stability received rather weak ratings,with few of the public engagementprojects specifying concrete outcomesor translation into political processes.Only the UK Nanojury and Nanodia-logues showed robust approaches toproducing at least some impact. Whilethe UK Nanodialogues produced col-laborative impacts on corporations andforeign aid projects, the Nanojury for-mulated recommendations to scientistsand policymakers. However, to whatextent these recommendations weretaken up within the relevant organiza-tions and institutions remains unclear;they therefore were rated as only par-tially stable.

Acceptability

Acceptability received even weaker rat-ings since only two of the projects—

the UK Nanojury and Nanodialogues—considered to any extent the acceptabil-ity of their approaches, methods, andthe issues discussed. While the Nano-jury reflected on the acceptability ofthe dialogue process in its collaborationwith related organizations, the Nanodi-alogues gave the involved citizens dis-cursive space to reflect on their accep-tance of the project. However, the ac-ceptability of both projects was not sub-ject to further consultation. Therefore,they were rated as meeting only certainaspects of acceptability.

Social knowledge

How social knowledge was consideredin terms of discussion and communi-cation style, the use of further commu-nicative and decision-making tools, andthe inclusion of external societal knowl-edge, generally showed higher ratings.

Here again, the UK Nanojury and Nan-odialogues were rated highest for theiruse of new and experimental modesof engaging social knowledge, allowingtwo-way communication in pursuit ofthe explicit goal of mutual learning, andengaging the public “upstream.” Whilethe Nanojury worked in close collabora-tion with organizations related to its tar-get issues and enabled public issues tobe taken up within these organizations,the Nanodialogues opened the discus-sion by letting citizens discuss an issue


of their own choice and gave them theopportunity to frame the NST-related is-sues, themes, and questions to be dis-cussed.

The other dialogue-oriented projects,the Swiss Publifocus and the EU Na-nologue, mostly framed the themes, is-sues, and questions around which theyaimed at creating a discussion withthe participants themselves. This waseven more the case with education-oriented approaches such as the U.S.NISE network events and the UK Bris-tol Citizen Science project. However,the EU Nanologue project gave at leastsome attention to social knowledge,with greater focus on dialogues and dis-cussion although its approach did notallow much space for breaking up tra-ditional framings of communicative ac-tors regarding their knowledge back-ground, nor did it encourage much mu-tual learning. This was even more thecase with the Swiss Publifocus project.An information brochure (Cerutti 2006)defining NST and explaining poten-tial products, applications, opportuni-ties and risks was handed out to eachparticipant in advance of the meetings;discussion themes and issues were alsogiven in advance. Its focus group meet-ings then began with two expert presen-tations explaining potential risks andethical issues of NST, and the group dis-cussion was moderated.

EvaluationMost of the projects used frequent test-ing, feedback, and improvement. Bypublishing self-reflective evaluation re-ports, critically assessing approaches,methods, outcomes, and feed-forwardinto policy processes the UK Nanojuryand the Nanodialogues again achievedthe highest ratings. The NISE network,the Swiss Publifocus project, and the EUNanologue project also published theirresults. However, they did not reflect ontheir approaches, methods, processes,and their policy process and currentsocietal discourse outcomes (cf. Flagg2005, Rey, 2006).11

11 See also <www.nisenet.org/community/groups/forums> and <www.nano-

4.2 Deficit or upstream model? Ashort summary of the analysis

The deficit model

With the exception of the UK Nanojuryand Nanodialogues, this analysis showsfairly traditional approaches to publicengagement that seem to be influencedby the old deficit model of informationand education, rather than exchangeand mutual learning. Although themethods and approaches were varied,most looked similar to those used inparticipative programs of the 1990s likecitizen conferences, focus groups, ordialogues, whose translation into thepolitical process had certain limitations(Abels and Bora 2004). These projectsonly partially met criteria of social ro-bustness and none provided any visibleevaluation or reflection on method, con-cept, general aim, or policy impact atthe end of the project.

Upstream engagement

However, the UK Nanojury and Nanodi-alogues seem to have used new andexperimental approaches. Located inthe UK, where upstream engagementis widely propagated and disseminated,each reached a +3 rather for social ro-bustness. While the methodological ap-proach of the Nanojury reversed the tra-ditional roles of science and the public,and thus supported mutual learning andtwo-way communication, the Nanodi-alogues contributed to significant andinnovative uptake of citizen’s voicesby applying public engagement in newcontexts such as funding agencies, cor-porations and foreign aid projects. Bothprojects were evaluated by reports thatsuggested improvements by criticallyreflecting on aims, approaches, meth-ods, process, policy impact, the conceptof upstream engagement in general,and public engagement in a broadercontext of science-society interactions(Stilgoe 2007, Singh 2007, Doubledayand Welland 2005).

Both projects seem to have reached animpressive level of exchange and mu-tual learning regarding specific projects

logue.net> (visited 15.01.2010).

100 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

and contexts. Yet, regarding more gen-eral science policy questions and de-cision making in NST, the translationof public engagement into the politi-cal process turned out to be more dif-ficult. Even in experimental and newapproaches, traditional contrast struc-tures opposing science and the pub-lic in terms of an expert/lay divide aredifficult to overcome. The Nanodia-logues project in particular, maintaineda rather traditional framing of scienceand the public in its conceptualizationof experts (nanoresearchers) and a laypublic (randomly selected citizens) (seeKearnes et al. 2006b). A videotape doc-umenting the Nanodialogues, in whichthe public was almost entirely repre-sented by women (concerned mothers)and science by men (informative teach-ers), further sustained this construc-tion.12 Such traditional, and particu-larly gendered framing of the public asa group of randomly selected citizensor lay persons who are pitted againstscience, represented mainly by clas-sic scientific experts, might not provideideal ground for more democratic in-volvement through reflective exchangeand mutual learning, which is a corepremise of upstream engagement.

5 Accountability anddemocracy in science andtechnology governance

Policy discourses on emerging tech-nologies and new scientific fields pointto a shift from government to gov-ernance. Governance approaches,whether regulatory or deliberation-oriented, have framed responsibilityand democracy as desirable aspects oftechnology development. Governanceof this kind has been postulated as asubstitute for federal regulation and asa way to more robust science and tech-nology policy.

12 The videotape was shown by Prof. PhilMacnaghten at the conference “The risk gov-ernance of nanotechnology: recommenda-tions for managing a global issue” on 6th -7th July 2006 hosted by Swiss Re in Rüsch-likon Switzerland.

5.1 Summary of the analysis

Looking at 14 regulatory-oriented and6 deliberation-oriented governance ap-proaches and projects in NST, this ar-ticle analyzes the reported increase ofsocial robustness in science and tech-nology policy. None of the 20 gov-ernance approaches and projects thatwere analyzed entirely met all the cri-teria of social robustness. Only eighthad ratings of 0 or greater. Of the 14soft law and self-regulatory approaches,only one had a social robustness scoregreater than 0, while five were rated0. By comparison, two of the 6 en-gagement projects had social robust-ness scores of 3, while the rest wererated below 0.

Contextualization

Most of the regulatory and deliberation-oriented governance approaches werewell embedded and contextualized incurrent technology and policy debates,and focused on issues such as poten-tial risks, and environmental and soci-etal issues in NST. Contexts and meth-ods providing engagement played a ma-jor role. Even if PUS-based, the highestrated engagement projects used exper-imental approaches of two-way com-munication to engage the communica-tive actors, whether or not expert/layperson framing predominated, in anupstream-engagement-oriented way.

Stability

Stability, which encompasses the waysschemes feed forward into political pro-cesses, was nearly the weakest as-pect of social robustness. Only oneregulatory-oriented and one delibera-tion-oriented governance scheme es-tablished a measure of policymakingand contributed to concrete, measur-able outcome. These soft law or self-regulatory approaches are to a cer-tain extent enforceable: they can directpressure for commitment upon memberstates or manufacturers. The sponsor-ship program for testing manufacturednanoscale materials of the OECD Work-ing Party on Manufactured Nanomateri-als, requires a binding commitment on


the part of member states to fund andoversee a testing program of selectednanoscale materials, while the UK Nan-odialogues contributed new insight topolicy discourse in funding agencies,corporations, and foreign aid projects.

AcceptabilityNone of the regulatory, and only twoof the deliberation-oriented schemes re-flected on acceptability; it proved theweakest of the five aspects. The UKNanojury and the Nanodialogues par-tially met acceptability criteria by afford-ing participating actors a formative rolein discussion.

Social knowledgeMost of the governance schemes con-sidered the social knowledge of atleast selected actors. Only a fewwere open to fully public consulta-tion. The regulatory-oriented projectsthat received the highest scores—theUK and U.S. governmental reportingschemes and the U.S. private NanoriskFramework—built in tools, methods,and measures to collect and consult so-cial knowledge beyond that of only se-lected actors. Among the engagementprojects, the question primarily focusesnot on whether public consultation hap-pened, but rather on the way socialknowledge was considered. However,only two of the six engagement projectsreceived ratings higher than 0. TheUK Nanojury and Nanodialogues es-tablished equality-oriented engagementthat made possible mutual learning anddialogue. The others oriented account-ing for social knowledge around educa-tion or the provision of acceptance.

EvaluationMost of the 20 analyzed schemesused frequent testing and at least self-evaluation to assist improvement. Reg-ulatory schemes with external evalu-ation, testing, and improvement pro-cesses collected feedback on websites,held stakeholder consultations and pub-lic events, or had built-in external eval-uation mechanisms such as certifica-tion systems. The supranational EU

schemes also performed well. Amongthe deliberation-oriented governancemeasures, evaluation mostly focusedon results rather than methods, on ap-proaches, and on critical reflection uponthe projects. The UK Nanojury andNanodialogues, projects with a reflec-tive final report that critically assessedtheir epistemic basis, approach, meth-ods, and results, performed the best.

5.2 Social robustness

This study shows that only 8 of the 20analyzed governance schemes met atleast some of the social robustness cri-teria in a concrete, solid way (that is,had ratings equal to or greater than 0).Most turned out to be weak in mostaspects of social robustness. Somegave the impression of being confinedto declarations of intent, of holding totraditional information and education-oriented engagement based on the old,and widely criticized divide between ex-perts and lay citizens.

For the soft law and self-regulatory ini-tiatives, the lack of robustness arisesparticularly from their instability withregard to integration into the politi-cal process, their lack of considerationof their acceptability, and a deficit ofconcrete results and enforceable out-comes. They considered little societalknowledge outside that of the proximalactors, organizations, and institutions,and were rarely subject to external eval-uation, testing, and improvement.

Regarding the deliberative approaches,several did not go beyond consensusformation or measuring public opinion.Apart from innovative and experimen-tal approaches such as the UK Nanojuryand the Nanodialogues, which providea substantial level of exchange and mu-tual learning, most projects used fairlytraditional methodological approachesthat reflect the conceptual framing ofthe old deficit-model of public under-standing of science and related educa-tion ideas.

In particular, the notion of a bound-ary separating science and the publicinto two societal actors on either side

102 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

of an expert/lay divide, and the focuson old contrast structures that furtherset a unified science and an illiteratepublic in opposition persist in most ofthe projects. In addition to this majorobstacle to reflective exchange, mutuallearning, and more democratic pub-lic involvement, the translation of pub-lic engagement into the political pro-cess and science and technology pol-icy, appears difficult and unclear inmost of the analyzed cases. Thesefindings contest the idea that delibera-tive governance projects and public up-stream engagement in NST exemplify aparadigm shift in techno-political dis-course and will lead toward the moredemocratic development of technologythat is advocated by proponents of theupstream engagement approach (Wils-don and Willis, 2004). In fact, gover-nance projects still appear to limit pub-lic engagement to values, and socialand ethical matters, rather than to ex-pose expertise to scrutiny (Hagendijkand Irwin 2006, 175-176).

5.3 ConclusionIn the governance turn, self-regulationand public engagement have often beenframed as substitutes for governmen-tal regulation. In governmental reg-ulation, political responsibility is insti-tutionally based, while in the logicsof governance, political responsibilityis distributed and deliberated among avariety of actors in different societaldomains. As conceived in the gov-ernance turn, regulation takes placein a sphere that is, in contrast togovernmental regulation, situated out-side of democratic control mechanisms.In the case of science and technol-ogy governance, techno-political com-petence is delegated to societal ac-tors who act outside of democratic,legitimized bodies. In NST potentialimplications are still uncertain. Cur-rently, genuine regulatory and policy is-sues have been rationalized in terms ofgovernance, which includes ideas suchas “good practice,” “responsible behav-ior,” and “acceptance building” in self-regulatory approaches and public en-gagement projects. This could lead to a

decentralization and distribution of po-litical and regulatory responsibility. It isno longer locally bound or identifiable,which as a consequence leads to a de-politicization of regulation (Offe 2008,71).

As the social robustness analysis of reg-ulatory and deliberation-oriented gov-ernance approach shows, the gover-nance turn might not contribute tothe intended increase in responsibleand democratic science and technologypolicies. This might be due to the in-trinsic weakness by means of politicalstability, concrete and enforceable out-comes and impacts, and the absence ofconsideration of social knowledge or atleast considering it as an equal, in amutual-learning-oriented way.

Particularly in NST, in which uncertaintywith regard to potentially hazardous im-plications is predominant, the estab-lishment of politically unstable and so-cially less robust governance measuresappears problematic. This is particu-larly the case regarding the protectionof society and the environment from po-tential hazards. Therefore, the delega-tion of techno-political decision-makingby political representatives to a vari-ety of societal actors through sociallyless robust, self-regulatory soft lawapproaches and engagement projects,might lead to a vacuum in scienceand technology policy. Such a vac-uum might not only impact academicknowledge production in related re-search fields, but also limit the innova-tive force of a society.

6 References

Abels, Gabriele/Alfons Bora, 2004:Demokratische Technikbewertung. Biele-feld: Transcript Verlag.

Barben, Daniel, 2005: Changing Regimesof Science and Politics: Comparative andTransnational Perspectives for a World inTransition. In: Martin Lengwiler/DagmarSimon (eds.), New Governance Arrange-ments in Science Policy – Discussion Paperof the ’Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin’, Berlin:39-63.

Barben, Daniel et al., 2008: Anticipatory Gov-ernance of Nanotechnology: Foresight,


Engagement, and Integration. In: EdwardJ. Hackett/Olga Amsterdamska/MichaelLynch/Judy Wajcman (eds.), The Hand-book of Science and Technology Studies:Third Edition, Cambridge: MIT Press: 979-1000.

Bell, Christopher L. et al., 2006: Regulationof Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Sub-stances Control Act. Chicago: American BarAssociation, Section of Environment, En-ergy , and Ressources.

Bergeson, Lynn, 2007: Good Governance:Evolution of the Nanoscale MaterialsStewardship Program. In: Nanotechnol-ogy Law & Business Winter 2007: 473–483.

Boekaerts, Monique, 2005: Handbook of Self-Regulation. Burlington: Academic Press.

Borràs, Susana/T Conzelmann, 2007:Democracy, Legitimacy and Soft Modesof Governance in the EU: The EmpiricalTurn. In: Journal of European Integration29 (5): 531-548.

Bullis, Kevin, 2008: EPA’s Lousy New Nan-otech Program. In: MIT Technology Review(January 28, 2008).

Catenhusen, Wolf-Michael et al., 2008:Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Nanotech-nologien Bericht und Empfehlungen derNanoKommission der deutschen Bun-desregierung Berlin: NanoKommission derdeutschen Bundesregierung.

CEC, 2004: Mitteilung der Kommission: Aufdem Weg zu einer europäischen Strategie fürNanotechnologie. Brussels: Commission ofthe European Communities (CEC).

---, 2008: Communication from the Com-mission: Regulatory Aspects of Nanomateri-als Brussels: Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (CEC).

Cerutti, Herbert, 2006: Nano! Nanu? -Informationsbroschüre Publifocus "Nan-otechnologien und ihre Bedeutung fürGesundheit und Umwelt". Bern: Zentrumfür Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TASwiss.

CH-Bundesrat, 2008: Aktionsplan "Syn-thetische Nanomaterialien": Bericht desBundesrates vom 9. April 2008. Bern:Eidgenössisches Departement des In-nern, Eidgenössisches Volkswirtschafts-departement, Eidgenössisches Departe-ment für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie undKommunikation, <www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00574/index.html?lang=de>.

Doubleday, Robert/Mark Welland, 2005:NanoJury UK: Reflections from the perspec-tive of the IRC in Nanotechnology and FRON-TIERS. Cambridge: IRC in Nanotechnology,University of Cambridge and FRONTIERSNetwork of Excellence in Nanotechnology.

Felt, Ulrike et al., 2008: Visions and Ver-sions of Governing Biomedicine: Narra-tives on Power Structures, Decisionmak-ing and Public Participation in the Fieldof Biomedical Technology in the AustrianContext. In: Social Studies of Science 38 (2):233-257.

Flagg, Barbara, 2005: Nanotechnology andthe Public: Part I of Front-End Analysisin Support of Nanoscale Informal ScienceEducation Network. Arlington, Virginia:Nanoscale Informal Science EducationNetwork, <www.nisenet.org/files\_static/evaluation/NISEFrtEndPart1Text.pdf>.

Gaskell, George et al., 2005: Imagining Nan-otechnology: Cultural Support for Tech-nological Innovation in Europe and theUnited States. In: Public Understanding ofScience 14 (1): 81-90 <pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/81>.

---, 2004: Public Attitudes to Nanotechnologyin Europe and the United States. In: Naturematerials 3 (August 2004): 496.

Gavelin, Karin et al., 2007: Democratic Tech-nologies? The Final Report of the Nanotech-nology Engagement Group (NEG). London:Involve.

Gibbons, Michael et al., 1994: The New Pro-duction of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Sci-ence and Research in Contemporary Soci-eties. London: Sage.

Gottweis, Herbert/Alan Petersen (eds.),2008: Biobanks: Governance in Compar-ative Perspective. London: Routledge.

Hagendijk, Rob/Alan Irwin, 2006: Public de-liberation and governance: Engaging withscience and technology in contemporaryEurope. In: Minerva 44: 167-184.

Hagendijk, Rob P., 2004: The Public Under-standing of Science and Public Participa-tion in Regulated Worlds. In: Minerva 42:41-59.

Hagendijk, Robert P., 2005: STAGE: Sci-ence Technology and Governance in Europe:Challenges of Public Engagement. Amster-dam: University of Amsterdam, Final Re-port.

Hanson, David, 2008: Regulation: NanotechStewardship: Voluntary EPA Program Crit-icized for not Giving Agency the Data itNeeds to Regulate Nanoscale Materials. In:Chemical & Engineering News (January 28,2008).

Irwin, Alan, 2006: The Politics of Talk: Com-ing to Terms with the "New Scientific Gov-ernance". In: Social Studies of Science 16(1): 299-320.

Irwin, Alan/Bryan Wynne, 1996: Misunder-standing Science? The Public Reconstruc-tion of Science and Technology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

104 STI-Studies 2009: 87-110

Jasanoff, Sheila, 2005: Designs on Nature:Science and Democracy in Europe and theUnited States. Princeton: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Kaiser, Mario et al. (eds.), 2009: AssessmentRegimes of Technology: Regulation, Deliber-ation & Identity Politics of Nanotechnology.Dordrecht: Springer.

Kearnes, Matthew, 2009: The Time ofScience: Deliberation and the ’NewGovernance’ of Nanotechnology. In:Mario Kaiser/Monika Kurath/SabineMaasen/Christoph Rehmann-Sutter (eds.),Governing Future Technologies: Nanotech-nology and the Rise of an AssessmentRegime, Berlin: Springer.

Kearnes, Matthew et al., 2006a: From Bio toNano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agri-cultural Biotechnology Controversy. In:Science as Culture 15 (4): 291-307.

---, 2006b: Governing at the Nanoscale. Peo-ple, policies and emerging technologies.London: Demos.

Kearnes, Matthew/Arie Rip, 2009: TheEmerging Governance Landscape ofNanaotechnology. In: Stefan Gam-mel/Andreas Lösch/Alfred Nordmann(eds.), Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum poli-tischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie,Heidelberg: AKA-Verlag

Kearnes, Matthew/Brian Wynne, 2007: OnNanotechnology and Ambivalence: ThePolitics of Enthusiasm. In: nanoethics 1 (2):131-142.

Kirton, John J./Michael J. Treblicock (eds.),2004: Soft Law: Voluntary Standards inGlobal Trade, Environment and Social Gov-ernance. Burlington: Ashgate.

Kurath, Monika/Priska Gisler, 2009: Inform-ing, Involving or Engaging? Science Com-munication, in the Ages of Atom-, Bio- andNanotechnology. In: Public Understandingof Science 18 (5).

Kurath, Monika/Sabine Maasen, 2006:Toxicology as a Nanoscience? - Dis-ciplinary Identities Reconsidered. In:Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3 (1): 6<www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/3/1/6>.

Lamneck, Siegfried, 1988: Qualitative Sozial-forschung Weinheim: Psychologie VerlagsUnion.

Lengwiler, Martin/Dagmar Simon, 2009:New Governance Arrangements in SciencePolicy. Berlin: WissenschaftszentrumBerlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).

Lösch, Andreas, 2006: Means of Communi-cating Innovations. A Case Study for theAnalysis and Assessment of Nanotechnol-ogy’s Futuristic Visions. In: Science, Tech-nology and Innovation Studies 2: 103-126.

Lösch, Andreas et al., 2008: Ob-servieren—Sondieren—Regulieren: Zurgesellschaftlichen Einbettung nanotech-nologischer Entwicklungsprozesse (Be-standesaufnahme und Modellentwurf).Darmstadt: Technische Universität Darm-stadt, Büro für Interdisziplinäre Nan-otechnikforschung—Nanobüro mit Unter-stützung des Bundesministeriums für Bil-dung und Forschung (BMBF).

Maasen, Sabine, 2009: Converging Tech-nologies – Diverging Reflexivities? Intellec-tual Work in Knowledge-Risk-Media-AuditSocieties. In: Mario Kaiser/Monika Ku-rath/Sabine Maasen/Christoph Rehmann-Sutter (eds.), Assessment Regimes of Tech-nology: Regulation, Deliberation & Iden-tity Politics of Nanotechnology, Dordrecht:Springer.

Macoubrie, Jane, 2005: Informed Public Per-ceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust inGovernment. Washington DC: WoodrowWlson International Center for Scholars.

Mayntz, Renate, 1996: Politische Steuerung:Aufstieg, Niedergang und Transformationeiner Theorie. In: Klaus Beyme/Claus Offe(eds.), Politische Theorien in der Ära derTransformation, Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag: 148-168.

Miller, Peter/Nikolas Rose, 2008: Governingthe Present: Administering Economic, Socialand Personal Life. Weinheim: Wiley.

Nasser, Salem, H., 2008: Sources and Normsof International Law: A Study on Soft Law.Glienicke/Berlin: Galda + Wilch.

Nature, 2004: Going public. In: Nature 431(7011 October 2004): 883.

Nowotny, Helga et al., 2001: Re-Thinking Sci-ence: Knowledge and the Public in an Age ofUncertainty. London: Polity Press.

Offe, Claus, 2008: Governance "EmptySignifier" oder sozialwissenschaftlichesForschungsprogramm? In: Gunnar FolkeSchuppert/Michael Zürn (eds.), Gover-nance in einer sich wandelnden Welt,Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwis-senschaften.

Rey, Lucienne, 2006: Nanotechnologien inder Schweiz: Herausforderungen erkannt:Bericht zum Dialogverfahren publifocus"Nanotechnologien und ihre Bedeutung fürGesundheit und Umwelt". Bern: Zentrumfür Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TASwiss.

Rhodes, Rod A.W., 1997: Understanding Gov-ernance: Policy Networks, Governance, Re-flexivity and Accountability. Buckingham,Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Rip, Arie, 2006: Folk Theories about Nan-otechnology. Twente: University ofTwente.


Rip, Arie/Jan-Peter Voss, 2008: UmbrellaTerms in the Governance of Emerging Sci-ence and Technology: Bridging the Ten-sion Between Relevance and Scientific Ad-vance. Governance von Zukunftstechnolo-gien, Technical University of Berlin, 22.-23.May 2009.

Rose, Nikolas, 1996: Governing "AdvancedLiberal Democracies". In: A. Barry/T. Os-borne/Nikolas Rose (eds.), Foucault andPolitical Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalismand Rationalities of Government, London:UCL Press.

RS&RAE, 2004: Nanoscience and Nanotechn-logies: Opportunities and Uncertainties.London: The Royal Society and the RoyalAcademy of Engineering,<www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy>.

Schummer, Joachim, 2009: Nanotechnologie.Spiele mit Grenzen. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

Singh, Jasber, 2007: Polluted Waters: TheUK Nanojury as Upstream Public Engage-ment. Newcastle: Policy, Ethics andLife Sciences Research Centre (PEALS),<www.nanojury.org.uk/pdfs/polluted\_waters.pdf>.

Stilgoe, Jack, 2007: Nanodialogues: Experi-ments in Public Engagement with Science.London: Demos.

Türk, Volker et al., 2006: Nanologue: Opin-ions on the Ethical, Legal and Social As-pects of Nanotechnologies—Results from aConsultation with Representatives from Re-search, Business and Civil Society. <www.nanologue.net/custom/user/Downloads/NanologueWP34FinalPublic.pdf>.

U.S. EPA, 2009: Nanoscale Materials Steward-ship Program: Interim Report. Washing-ton D.C.: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency: Office of Pollution, Preventionand Toxics, <www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-interim-report-final.pdf>.

Weingart, Peter, 2001: Die Stunde derWahrheit? Vom Verhältnis der Wissenschaftzu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in derWissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: VelbrückWissenschaft.

Wilsdon, James, 2005: Small Talk: NewWays of Democratising Science and Tech-nology. London: Open Democracy,<www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-accountability/science\_2871.jsp>.

Wilsdon, James/Rebecca Willis, 2004: See-Through Science: Why Public Engage-ment Needs to Move Upstream. Lon-don: DEMOS, <www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf>.

Wullweber, Joscha, 2008: Nanotechnology– An Empty Signifier à Venir? A Delin-eation of a Techno-Socieo-Economical In-novation Strategy. In: Science, Technologyand Innovation Studies 4: 27-45.

Wynne, Bryan, 1995: Public Understandingof Science. In: Sheila Jasanoff/GeraldE. Markle/James C. Petersen/Trevor Pinch(eds.), Handbook of Science and TechnologyStudies, Thousand Oaks: Sage: 361-388.

---, 2001: Creating Public Alienation: ExpertCultures of Risk and Ethics on GMO’s. In:Science as Culture 10 (4): 445-481.

106S

TI-S

tudies

2009:87-110

7 Appendix (tables)

Table 3: Description, aim and results of self-regulatory and soft law approachesSupranational schemesEuropean Union (EU), European CommissionAction Plan on Nanosciences andNanotechnologies 2005

Commitment of commission and call to member states for promotion research and development, infrastructure, education, technology transfer,societal dimension, public health, safety and international collaboration in NST. Commitment for concrete actions by the commission such asfunding and research focus in 6th framework program.Aim: Integrated and responsible NST strategy for Europe, institutional level of NST discussions.Results: Implementation report and political responses of EU Council and European Parliament.

EU European CommissionCode of Conduct on Responsible NanoResearch 2007

Voluntary code and recommendation to member states to support public comprehensibility, sustainable, precautionary, inclusive, excellent,innovative, accountable economic, social and environmental development of NST.Aim: to ensure that NST research is undertaken in safe, ethical and effective framework.Results: Conference, EU Commission recommendation and EU Council conclusion.

Governmental schemesUK Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs (DEFRA)Voluntary Reporting Scheme for EngineeredNanoscale Materials 2006

Voluntary data reporting scheme for industry and research organizations.Aim: government receives information relevant to understanding the potential risks posed by free engineered nanoscale materials. Results: 13Data submissions according to guideline, annual scheme’s progress update reports.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Nanomaterial Stewardship Program 2008

Voluntary data reporting scheme for manufacturers and processors.Aim: Support agency assembles existing data and information on existing chemical NM; identify and encourage use of risk management practicesin developing and commercializing NM; and encourage the development of test data needed, collaborative process with invited stakeholders.Results: Concept paper, TSCA Inventory Status on Nanoscale Substances, 21 data submissions, according to supporting statement and reportingform, public meeting.

German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)NanoCommission/NanoDialogue 2006

Stakeholder commission as central national dialogue committee of the German Government and various interest groups. Stakeholder consistedof representatives from science, industry environmental and consumer organizations, trade unions, government departments and agencies.Aim: analysis of opportunities and risks of NM, under precautionary and sustainable innovations approach.Results: assessment criteria, and basic principles for „responsible“ use.

German Federal Government(Bundesregierung)Nano-Initiative, Action Plan 2006

Innovation initiative and action plan of several federal ministries (of education and research (BMBF), work and social issues (BMAS), for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), of Defense (BMVg), ofHealth (BMG), of Economy and Technology (BMWi)).Aim: Technology transfer, political conditions, collaboration among agencies, public dialogue, analysis of environmental and health risks,leading innovations, research-, support- and agency initiatives.Results: Research focus, funding of leading innovations

to be continued

Mo

nika

Ku

rath:

Nan

otech

no

logy

Go

vernan

ce107

Swiss Federal GovernmentAction Plan “Synthetic Nanomaterials” 2008

Action plan for risk assessment and management of synthetic nanomaterials, based on basic report: “Risk Assessment and Risk Management ofSynthetic Nanomaterials” of the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).Aim: a responsible development of nanotechnology, a regulatory framework and public dialogue on its opportunities and risks.Results: National research program on opportunities and risks of nanoscale materials, precautionary framework (Vorsorgeraster) for industrialrecognicion of NST specific risks, development of safety framework for NST-related products together with representatives from science, industry,environmental and consumer organizations.

Private schemesU.S. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) –DuPontNano Risk Framework (NRF) 2007

Standards-based risk management framework scheme for manufacturersAim: Comprehensive process to evaluate and address potential risks of nanoscale materials for organizations,Results: Scheme consisting six detailed steps for guidance in key questions and risk management practice, commitment to governmentalprograms (EPA) of applying organizations.

UK Royal Society – Insight Investment – NTIndustry Association – NT Knowledge TransferNetworkResponsible Nano Code 2008

Principle based code of conduct for organizations involved in the research, production, retail and disposal of products using nanotechnologies.Aim: responsible NST approach throughout the product life-circle.Results: written code with 7 general principles, update and background information.

German Chemical Industries Association (VCI)GuidelinesManuals for a Responsible Handling ofNanoscale Materials 2008

Guideline manuals consisting of core principles such as precaution, product responsibility and workplace safety.Aim: Support for manufacturers and customers for responsible use of nanomaterials, harmonization and use in OECD process.Results: Manuals consisting of checklists, safety sheets, strategy documents, safety research, standardization, stakeholder workshop and riskmanagement guidelines.

German TUV Süd – Swiss Innovation SocietyCenarios Certification System 2008

Certifiable risk management and monitoring-system for nanotechnologies.Aim: recognize risks, provide safety, identify, analyze and rate of potential opportunities and risks of NST.Results: certificate for applying firms, annual evaluation and recertification.

Swiss Retail AssociationCode of Conduct Nanotechnologies 2008

Principle based code on information exchange between manufacturers, suppliers, customer information, risk management and cooperation.Aim: To face increasing importance of nanotechnology in consumer products. Consumer information, transparency between producers,suppliers, retailers and consumers.Results: Factsheet, declaration document for suppliers.

International schemesOrganization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD)Working Party on ManufacturedNanomaterials (MNM) 2006

International cooperation in addressing human health and environmental safety aspects of manufactured nanomaterials.Aim: Safety of manufactured nanomaterials, international cooperation on databases, testing, definition and implementation.Results: sponsorship program for testing of MNM, database on research into safety of MNM, workshops and events.

OECDWorking Party on Nanotechnology 2007

International cooperation and consultation on scientific, technical and innovation related questions on responsible nanotechnologydevelopment, coordinated analysis in safety issues.Aim: advise upon emerging policy issues of science, technology and innovation related to the responsible development of nanotechnology.Results: review of nanotechnology developments based on indicators and statistics

NT=Nanotechnology, NM=nanoscale materials, MNM=manufactured nanomaterials

108S

TI-S

tudies

2009:87-110

Table 4: Analysis of self-regulatory and soft law approaches regarding the criteria of social robustness

contextualization stability acceptability social knowledge evaluationSupranational schemesEU Action Plan on Nanosciences andNanotechnologies 2005

Principle-based, R&D,risk and social issuesrelated

Declaration of intent, partly enforceablyby financial pressure on member states

Not specified Indirect by dialoguesand comments

Bi-annual report to council andparliament based on indicators

EU Code of Conduct on responsible NanoResearch 2007

Principle-based,research-related

Invitation to member states, voluntary,but partly enforceable by bi-annualreviews

Not specified Not specified Bi-annual review recommendationand extent of adoption andapplicance

Governmental schemesUK DEFRA Voluntary Reporting Schemefor Engineered Nanoscale Materials 2006

Standards-based,risk-related

Voluntary call, non-enforceable Not specified Subject to publicconsultation

Annual self-evaluatory review

U.S. EPA Nanomaterial StewardshipProgram 2008


Voluntary call, non-enforceable Not specified Subject to publicconsultation

Self-evaluation

GermanNanoCommission/NanoDialogue 2006

Principle-based, risk-& dialogue-related

Recommendation, voluntary principlesnon enforceable

Not specified Knowledge ofinvolved actors

Not specified

German Nano-Initiative, Action Plan 2006 Principle-based, R&D& risk-related

Declaration of intent, non enforceable Not specified Indirect by involvedactors

Not specified

Swiss Action Plan SyntheticNanomaterials 2008

Principle-based,risk-related

Declaration of intent, non enforceable Not specified Consultation ofselected actors

Not specified

Private schemesU.S. Nano Risk Framework 2007 Standards-based,

risk-relatedVoluntary agreement, partly enforceableon launching organization

Not specified Public consultation,international

Continued self-and externalevaluation planned

UK Responsible Nano Code 2008 Principle-based,organization-related

Voluntary agreement, non enforceable Not specified Not specified Not specified

German VCI Guidelines 2008 Standards-based,risk-related

Voluntary agreement, non enforceable Not specified Discussion withactors

Not specified

German/Swiss Cenarios CertificationSystem 2008


Enforceable for certified firms Not specified Not specified Annual evaluation andre-certification

Swiss Retail Association Code of ConductNanotechnologies 2008

Principle-based,dialogue-related

Voluntary agreement, members requiredto report

Not specified Stakeholder dialogue Self-evaluation by member reports

International schemesOECD Working Party on ManufacturedNanomaterials 2006


Commitment of member states tosponsorship program and database

Not specified Not specified Not specified, evaluation possible bysteering committee

OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology2007

Principle-based, R&Dinnovation-related

Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified

Mo

nika

Ku

rath:

Nan

otech

no

logy

Go

vernan

ce109

Table 5: Description, aim and results of public engagement projectsU.S. Science MuseumsNanoscale Informal Science Education (NISENetwork) 2005

A series of forum events lasting 2-3 hours, involved presentations by scientific experts and small group discussions, attended by 30-50participants (mainly science museum visitors), organized by a nationwide collaboration of five science museums, universities, researchinstitutions, artists.Aim: engage the public in the emerging NST field.Results: Forum event discussions.

UK Greenpeace - The Guardian - InterdisciplinaryResearch Collaboration (IRC) in Nanotechnology,University of Cambridge - Policy, Ethics and LifeSciences Research Centre (PEALS), NewcastleUniversityNanojury 2005

Two-way citizens’ jury, traditional method enriched with multi-stakeholder oversight: of science advisory panel, and built-in controlmechanism allowing jurors address topic of their choice before turning to NST.Aim: non-specialist perspective on NST science policy and environmental and public health issues, recommendations by jurors fornanotechnology’s future development in UK.Results: promise of response from Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

UK Think Tank DEMOS - Lancaster UniversityNanodialogues 2006

Four small-scale experiments in upstream public engagement, inquiry, dialogue, workshop, focus group, experience, experimentalapproach and a mix of adapted dialogue methods such as people’s inquiry (three deliberative workshops with east London residents andinput from scientists, environmental agency staff, policymakers, and other stakeholders); deliberative dialogue involving scientists,research-council staff, and members of the public; a workshop involving policymakers, politicians, and representatives from twocommunities; and a series of focus groups discussing scenarios developed by DEMOS and a commercial manufacturer.Aim: public engagement in decision making of research direction.Results: Set of recommendations and presentation to DEFRA and research councils.

UK University of BristolCitizen Science Bristol 2008

Science-communicaton, activities consisting of chat show-style debates, website resources, online games, and teachers’ materials.Aim: engaging young people (mostly students) in discussions about the role of science and technology in society.Results: Vote on areas of NST research to be founded and the degree of NST regulation.

TA Swiss – Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) –Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)- ZurichUniversity of Applied SciencesPublifocus Nanotechnology, Health and theEnvironment 2006

Focus group meetings with randomly selected citizens/members of the public in 4 lingual regions of Switzerland, one with concernedactors. Use of traditional method of focus group meetings citizens discussed a topic set by organizers, participants received a brochuredefining NST in advance, and meetings were introduced by expert presentations from a toxicologist and an ethicist.Aim: Finding out about public acceptance, opinions and questions on nanotechnology and public view on potential social and economicimplications.Results: Final report for public and parliament.

EU 6th framework programme: GermanWupppertal Institute – Swiss Federal Laboratoriesfor Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) – UKForum for the Future and pan-European TripleInnovaNanologue 2005-2006

Research project with dialogue part, using methods of public consultation and stakeholder-dialogues involving business, science, and civilsociety organizations.Aim: help establish common understanding on social, ethical and legal aspects of nanotechnology applications and facilitate Europe-widedialogue among science, business and civil society about benefits and potential impacts.Results: web-based tool (the NanoMeter), scenario report, presentations, and articles.

110S

TI-S

tudies

2009:87-110

Table 6: Analysis of public engagement projects regarding the criteria of social robustnesscontextualization stability acceptability social knowledge evaluation

U.S. NISE Network 2005 PUS-based, research, development andtrade-related, expert/ layperson framing

Not specified Not specified Education-oriented, expertteaching, expert-lay citizensdiscussion

Not specified, reports on publicopinion and communication

UK Nanojury 2005 Engagement-based, risk-, and societalissues-related, equally-oriented framing ofcommunicative actors

Recommendations toscientists,policy-makers,journalists

Methodologicalacceptability ofparticipants

Mutual-learning-oriented,two-way communication,

Report, articles, meta reflectionon project, design, methods

UK Nanodialogues 2006 Engagement-based, risk-, research-, policy-and societal issues-related, slight orientationto expert/ layperson framing

Impact incorporations, foreignaid, research councils


Mutual-learning-oriented,discussion, dialogue

Reports from each experiment,articles, pamphlet,meta-reflection on project,design, methods

UK Citizen Science Bristol2008

PUS-based, research anddevelopment-related, expert/ laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Education-oriented,discussion, vote

Not specified

Swiss PublifocusNanotechnology 2006

Engagement-based, risk-related,expert/laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Dialogue-oriented,discussion, teaching, vote

Report, no meta-reflection onproject, design, methods

EU Nanologue 2005-2006 Engagement-based, risk-related,expert/laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Dialogue-oriented,discussion


Public engagementprojects

contextualization stability acceptability consideration of socialknowledge

evaluation

U.S. NISE Network 2005 PUS-based, research, development andtrade-related, expert/ layperson framing

Not specified Not specified Education-oriented, expertteaching, expert-lay citizensdiscussion

Not specified, reports on publicopinion and communication

UK Nanojury 2005 Engagement-based, risk-, and societalissues-related, equally-oriented framing ofcommunicative actors

Recommendations toscientists,policy-makers,journalists


Mutual-learning-oriented,two-way communication,

Report, articles, meta reflectionon project, design, methods

UK Nanodialogues 2006 Engagement-based, risk-, research-, policy-and societal issues-related, slight orientationto expert/layperson framing

Impact incorporations, foreignaid, research councils


Mutual-learning-oriented,discussion, dialogue

Reports from each experiment,articles, pamphlet,meta-reflection on project,design, methods

UK Citizen Science Bristol2008

PUS-based, research anddevelopment-related, expert/ laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Education-oriented,discussion, vote

Not specified

Swiss PublifocusNanotechnology 2006

Engagement-based, risk-related,expert/laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Dialogue-oriented,discussion, teaching, vote


EU Nanologue 2005-2006 Engagement-based, risk-related,expert/laypersonframing

Not specified Not specified Dialogue-oriented,discussion


Nanotechnology Governance Accountability and Democracy in New Modes of Regulation and De-liberation

Documents

Transcript of Nanotechnology Governance Accountability and Democracy in New Modes of Regulation and De-liberation