SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

Article References

MACNAGHTEN, Phil. Engaging nanotechnologies: a case study of 'upstream' public engagement. Ambient. soc. [online]. 2010, vol.5Selected edition, pp. 0-0. ISSN 1414-753X.

    ADAM, B. Timescapes and modernity: the environment and invisible hazards. London: Routledge, 1998. [ Links ]

    AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION. Crops on trial. London: AEBC, 2001. [ Links ]

    BAINBRIDGE, W. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, v. 4, p. 561-570, 2002. [ Links ]

    BECK, U. The risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage, 1992. [ Links ]

    BENSAUDE-VINCENT, B. Two cultures of nanotechnology. HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, v. 10, n. 2, p. 65-82, 2004. [ Links ]

    Commission of the European Communities. Taking European knowledge seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Brussels - Belgium: European Commission: Directorate-General for Research. Disponível em: Acesso em: 02 Agosto 2009. [ Links ]

    COBB, M. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, v. 27, n. 2, p. 221-239, 2005. [ Links ]

    COBB, M.; MACOUBRIE, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, v. 6, p. 395-405, 2004. [ Links ]

    DAVIES, G. The sacred and the profane: biotechnology, rationality and public debate. Environment and Planning A, v. 38, n. 3, p. 423-444, 2006. [ Links ]

    Department of Trade and Industry. Excellence and opportunity - a science and innovation policy for the 21st century. London: DTI, 2000. [ Links ]

    Department of Trade and Industry. Science in society: findings from qualitative and quantitative research. London: MORI, 2005. [ Links ]

    DUPUY, J. Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, v. 32, n. 3, p. 237-261, 2007. [ Links ]

    DUPUY, J. The mechanization of the mind: on the origins of cognitive science. 2 ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. [ Links ]

    DUPUY, J.; GRINBAUM, A. Living with uncertainty: towards a normative assessment of nanotechnology. Techné (joint issue with Hyle), v. 8, n. 2, p. 4-25, 2004. [ Links ]

    FLECK, L. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979. [ Links ]

    GASKELL, G.; ALLUM, N.; Stares, S. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities, 2003. [ Links ]

    GASKELL, G. et al. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, v. 14, p. 81-90, 2005. [ Links ]

    GROVE-WHITE, R. et al. Uncertain World: genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, 1997. [ Links ]

    GROVE-WHITE, R.; MACNAGHTEN, P.; WYNNE, B. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, 2000. [ Links ]

    HACKING, I. "Style" for historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, v. 23, n. 1, p. 1-20, 1992. [ Links ]

    HM Government. The Government's outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies. London: Department of Trade and Industry, 2005. [ Links ]

    HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, and Department of Education and Skills. Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. London: HM Treasury, 2004. [ Links ]

    House of Lords. Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. London: The Stationery Office, 2000. [ Links ]

    IRWIN, A. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, v. 32, n. 2, p. 299-330, 2006. [ Links ]

    JASANOFF, S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, v. 41, n. 3, p. 223-244, 2003. [ Links ]

    KEARNES, M.; MACNAGHTEN, P.; WILSDON, J. Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos, 2006. [ Links ]

    KELLY, J. Public Attitudes to the commercialisation of GM crops: a report on desk research. London: COI Communications, 2002. [ Links ]

    LEE, C.; SCHEUFELE, D.; LEWENSTEIN, B. Public attitudes towards emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public support for nanotechnology. Science Communication, v. 27, n. 2, p. 240-267, 2005. [ Links ]

    LEVIDOW, L.; CARR, S. UK: precautionary commercialization. Journal of Risk Research, v. 3, n. 3, p. 261-270, 2000. [ Links ]

    MACNAGHTEN, P. Animals in their nature: a case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and "nature". Sociology, v. 38, n. 3, p. 533-551, 2004. [ Links ]

    MACNAGHTEN, P.; KEARNES, M.; WYNNE, B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, v. 27, n. 2, p. 268-287, 2005. [ Links ]

    MACOUBRIE, J. Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2005. [ Links ]

    MARRIS, C. et al. Public Attitudes to Biotechnology in Europe Research Project. FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 - SSMI). Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, 2001. [ Links ]

    NISBET, M.; SCHEUFELE, D. The future of public engagement, The Scientist, v. 21, n. 10, p. 39-44, 2007. [ Links ]

    NOBLE, D. The Religion of Technology: the divinity of Man and the spirit of invention. New York: Penguin, 1999. [ Links ]

    NORDMANN, A. Noumenal Technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of nano, Techné, v. 8, n. 3, p. 3-23, 2005. [ Links ]

    NORDMANN, A. Design Choices in the Nanoworld: a space odyssey. 2007. Disponível em: Acesso em: 02 Agosto 2009. [ Links ]

    PRIEST, S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, v. 8, n. 5, p. 563-568, 2006. [ Links ]

    REJESKI, D. Why Nano Fear Will Not Disappear. 2007. Disponível em: Acesso em: 02 Agosto 2009. [ Links ]

    RIP, A. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, v. 15, n. 4, p. 349-365, 2006. [ Links ]

    ROCO, M.; BAINBRIDGE, W. Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. [ Links ]

    ROSE, N. The Politics of Life Itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. [ Links ]

    Royal Commission of Environment and Pollution. 21st Report of the Royal Commission On Environmental Pollution - Setting Environmental Standard. London: The Stationery Office, 1998. [ Links ]

    Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004. [ Links ]

    SCHEUFELE, D.; TEWKSBURY, D. Framing, agenda-setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, v. 57, n. 1, p. 9-20, 2007. [ Links ]

    SHEETZ, T. et al. Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technology in Society,v. 27, n. 3, p. 329-345, 2005. [ Links ]

    WALDRON, A; SPENCER, D.; BATT, C. The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, v. 8, p. 569-575, 2006. [ Links ]

    WILSDON, J.; WILLIS, R, See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos, 2004. [ Links ]

    WYNNE, B. Technology, risk and participation: the social treatment of uncertainty. In: CONRAD, J. (Org). Society, technology and risk assessment. London: Academic Press, 1980. p. 173-208. [ Links ]