References
- Bennett, I., and D. Sarewitz. 2006. “Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States.” Science as Culture 15 (4): 309–325. doi: 10.1080/09505430601022635
- Breithaupt, H. 2006. “The Engineer's Approach to Biology.” EMBO Reports 7 (1): 21–24.
- Calvert, J. 2010. “Synthetic Biology: Constructing Nature?” The Sociological Review 58 (s1): 95–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01913.x
- Cook-Deegan, R. 1994. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics and the Human Genome. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Endy, D. 2005. “Foundations for Engineering Biology.” Nature 438 (24): 449–453. doi: 10.1038/nature04342
- Fisher, E. 2005. “Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program.” Technology in Society 27 (3): 321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006
- Fisher, E., and R. L. Mahajan. 2006. “Contradictory Intent: U.S. Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development.” Science and Public Policy 33 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.3152/147154306781779181
- Guston, D. H., & D. Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
- Kuzma, J., & T. Tanji. 2010. “Unpacking Synthetic Biology for Oversight Policy.” Regulation & Governance 4 (1): 92–112.
- Stirling, A. 2008. Opening Up and Closing Down Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294.
- Van de Ven, A. 2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.