Deliberation on the risks of nanoscale materials: learning from the partnership between environmental NGO EDF and chemical company DuPont

References

• Ansell, C. K. 2011a. “Democratic Governance in a Pragmatist Key.” In Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772438.003.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C. K. 2011b. “Collaborative Governance.” In Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/97801999772438.003.0009.
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C. K. 2011c. “Problem Solving Democracy.” In Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772438.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B. 2002. “‘Green Alliances’ of Business and NGOs. New Styles of Self-Regulation or ‘Dead-end Roads’?” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9 (1): 26–36. doi: 10.1002/csr.3
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., and J. van Tatenhove. 2004. “Policy and Power: A Conceptual Framework Between the ‘Old’and ‘New’ Policy Idioms.” Policy Sciences 37: 339–356. doi: 10.1007/s11077-005-0156-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. Guston. 2007. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rd ed., edited by E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, D., and H. P. Schmitz. 2012. “Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-Optation.” Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 9–21. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1057-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boenink, M., T. Swierstra, and D. Stemerding. 2010. “Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality: A Scenario Study of Experimenting with Humans in Bionanotechnology.” Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4: 2. Article 4.. doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1098
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, D. M. 2008. “Governing Nanotechnologies: Weaving New Regulatory Webs or Patching Up the Old?” Nanoethics 2: 179–181. doi: 10.1007/s11569-008-0036-9
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, D. M. 2017. “More than a Decade On: Mapping Today’s Regulatory and Policy Landscapes Following the Publication of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties.” Nanoethics 11: 169–186. doi: 10.1007/s11569-017-0281-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, Q. 2019. “Studying Democratic Innovations: Toward a Problem-Driven Approach to Case Study Research.” Policy Studies 40 (5): 556–579. doi:10.1080/01442872.2019.1618817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Civil Society-Labor Coalition. 2007. Civil Society-Labor Coalition Rejects Fundamentally Flawed DuPont-EDF Framework. An open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Governance, a White Paper. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. 2008. “Constructing Communication.” Science Communication 29 (4): 413–434. doi:10.1177/1075547008316222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. 2013. “The Rules of Engagement: Power and Interaction in Dialogue Events.” Public Understanding of Science 22 (1): 65–79. doi:10.1177/0963662511399685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1920. Reconstruction in Philosophy (1972 2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1927. The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1957. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: The Modern Library Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 2008. John Dewey The Later Works 1925–1953. Southern Illinois: Carbondale.
   Google Scholar
• Dijstelbloem, H. O. 2007. “De democratie anders: politieke vernieuwing volgens Dewey en Latour.” Doctor of Philosophy, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Enschede.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2016. “Deliberative Policy Analysis.” In Evidence-based Policy Making in the Social Sciences: Methods That Matter, edited by G. Stoker and M. Evans, 229–242. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2004. Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009. Brussels. Accessed September 12, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/policy/action_plan_brochure_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2011. DG Research Workshop on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Accessed September 12, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/responsible-research-and-innovation-workshop-newsletter_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society [Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society/Edited by Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, L. 2009. "From Transmission Towards Transaction: Design Requirements for Successful Public Participation in Communication and Governance of Science and Technology." PhD diss., University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. 2009. “Deliberative Governance in the Context of Power.” Policy and Society 28: 173–184. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrand, D. L. 2008. Dewey: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. “Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach.” Science, Technology and Human Values 29 (1): 3–29. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259188
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. 2013a. “DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: An Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry.” Nanoethics 7 (1): 45–54. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0167-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. 2013b. “Involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: creating productive spaces for interaction”. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. 2013c. “Dramatic Rehearsal on the Societal Embedding of the Lithium Chip.” In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor: Towards a Cooperative Ethics for the Development of Responsible Technology, edited by T. Swierstra and S. van der Burg, 168–187. Palgrave / MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. 2019. “Emerging Technologies and the Problem of Representation.” In Nanotechnology: Regulation and Public Discourse, edited by I. Eisenberger, A. Kallhoff, and C. Schwarz-Plaschg. Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L., and H. A. J. Mulder. 2015. “Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities.” Science Communication 37 (4): 452–484. doi: 10.1177/1075547015588601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupp, F., and C. Holliday. 2005. Let’s Get Nanotech Right. The Wallstreet Journal, June 14th. Accessed July 23. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5177_OpEd_WSJ050614.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y. 2015. “Think Tank 2.0 for Deliberative Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies 48: 25–50. doi:10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y. 2019. “Deliberative Policy Analysis: Towards a Methodological Orientation.” Policy Studies, doi:10.1080/01442872.2019.1618812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., and H. Wagenaar. 2019. “Conclusion: Building New Momentum for Deliberative Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies, doi:10.1080/01442872.2019.1618814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linkov, I. F., K. Satterstrom, J. C. Monica, S. F. Hanssen, and T. A. Davis. 2009. “Nano Risk Governance: Current Developments and Future Perspectives.” Nanotechnology Law and Business 6 (2): 203–220.
   Google Scholar
• Lister, S. 2000. “Power in Partnership? An Analysis of an NGO’s Relationships with its Partners.” Journal of International Development 12 (2): 227–239. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(200003)12:2<227::AID-JID637>3.0.CO;2-U
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N. 2005. “Issues Spark a Public Into Being. A key but Often Forgotten Point of the Lippmann–Dewey Debate.” In Making Things Public, edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel, 208–217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, A., D. Bowman, and G. Hodge. 2011. “The Problem of Regulating Sophisticated Materials.” Nature Materials 10: 554–557. doi: 10.1038/nmat3085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. 2002. Over Vrijheid. Translated by W.E. Krul. 5th edn. Amsterdam: Boom.
   Google Scholar
• Parandian, A. 2012. "Constructive TA of Newly Emerging Technologies. Stimulating Learning by Anticipation Through Bridging Events." PhD diss., Technical University of Delft.
   Google Scholar
• Reichow, A., and B. Dorbeck-Jung. 2013. “Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials.” Nanoethics 71 (1): 83–92. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0165-7
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. 1986. “Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment.” Science Communication 8 (2): 349–371. doi:10.1177/107554708600800216.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and P. B. Joly. 2004. “Multi-actor Spaces and the Governance of Science and Innovation in the ERA.” PRIME-TN, Workpackage 2.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and D. Robinson. 2013. “Constructive Technology Assessment and the Methodology of Insertion.” In Opening up the Laboratory: Approaches for Early Engagement with New Technologies, edited by I. van der Poel, N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, and M. E. Gorman, 37–53. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and A. S. Talma. 1998. “Antagonistic Patterns and New Technologies.” In Getting New Technologies Together, edited by C. Disco and B. Meulen van der, 299–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Senden, L. 2004. Soft Law in European Community Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley-Egan, C. 2011. “Ethics in Practice: Responding to an Evolving Problematic Situation of Nanotechnology in Society.” PhD dissertation, University of Twente, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley-Egan, C., D. Bowman, and D. Robinson. 2018. “Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24: 1719–1746. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9978-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swidler, A. 1986. “Culture in Action-Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51 (2): 273–286. doi: 10.2307/2095521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swierstra, T., and A. Rip. 2007. “Nano-ethics as NEST-Ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation about New and Emerging Science and Technology.” Nanoethics 1: 3–20. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. 2002. “Modern Social Imaginaries.” Public Culture 14 (1): 91–124. doi: 10.1215/08992363-14-1-91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H., H. Asenbaum, N. Curato, S. A. Ercan, and R. F. Medonca. forthcoming. “Deliberative Policy Analysis as Design-in-Practice: Towards a Methodological Approach.” In Assessing Deliberation: Methodological Approaches in Deliberative Democracy.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2001. “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs.” Science as Culture 10 (4): 445–481. doi: 10.1080/09505430120093586
   PubMedGoogle Scholar