Assigning meaning to NEST by technology futures: extended responsibility of technology assessment in RRI

References

• Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. Guson. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 3: 979–1000.
   Google Scholar
• Bechmann, G., M. Decker, U. Fiedeler, and B.-J. Krings. 2007. “TA in a complex World.” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1: 4–21.
   Google Scholar
• Bessant, J. 2013. “Innovation in the Twenty-First Century.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 1–26. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, eds. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. A. 1996. The Politics of Expertise in Congress: the Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J., B. Rappert, and A. Webster, eds. 2000. Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Burlington: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Cabrera Trujillo, L. 2014. “Visioneering and the Role of Active Engagement and Assessment.” Nanoethics 8 (2): 201–206. doi: 10.1007/s11569-014-0199-5
   Google Scholar
• Chadwick, R. F. 1997. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coenen, C. 2010. “Deliberating Visions: The Case of Human Enhancement in the Discourse on Nanotechnology and Convergence.” In Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, edited by M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 73–88. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Coenen, C., and E. Simakova. 2013. “STS Policy Interactions, Technology Assessment and the Governance of Technovisionary Sciences.” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9 (2): 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Collingride, D. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, M., and M. Ladikas, eds. 2004. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Drexler, K. E. 1986. Engines of Creation – The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feynman, R. P. 1959. “Lecture held at the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society, California Institute of Technology, December 12, 1959.” http:www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fiedeler, U., C. Coenen, S. R. Davies, and A. Ferrari, eds. 2010. Understanding Nanotechnology: Philosophy, Policy and Publics. Heidelberg: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., M. O’Rourke, R. Evans, E. B. Kennedy, M. E. Gorman, and T. P. Seager. 2015. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
   Google Scholar
• Foley, Rider W., Michael J. Bernstein, and Arnim Wiek. 2016. “Towards an Alignment of Activities, Aspirations and Stakeholders for Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 209–232. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1257380
   Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H.-G. 1975. “Hermeneutics and Social Science.” Philosophy Social Criticism / Cultural Hermeneutics 2 (4): 307–316. doi: 10.1177/019145377500200402
   Google Scholar
• Gianni, R. 2016. Responsibility and Freedom. The Ethical Realm of RRI. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Grinbaum, A., and C. Groves. 2013. “What is “Responsible” about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 119–142. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, C., K. Henwood, F. Shirani, C. Butler, K. Parkhill, and N. Pidgeon. 2016. “The Grit in the Oyster: Using Energy Biographies to Question Socio-technical Imaginaries of ‘smartness’.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3: 4–25. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1178897
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2009. “Technology Assessment.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by A. Meijers, 1103–1146. Vol. 9 of the Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2011a. “Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research.” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2011b. “Ten Years of Research on Nanotechnology and Society – Outcomes and Achievements.” In Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by T. B. Zülsdorf, C. Coenen, A. Ferrari, U. Fiedeler, C. Milburn, and M. Wienroth, 41–58. Heidelberg: AKA GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2012. Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2014. “The Hermeneutic side of Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 274–291. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968437
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2015. “Technology Assessment and Design for Values”. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, edited by J. van den Hoven, P. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel, 67–86. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2016. The Hermeneutic Side of Responsible Research and Innovation. London: Wiley-ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.” Technology in society 24 (1–2): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2006. “Great Uncertainty about Small Things.” In Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society, edited by J. Schummer and D. Baird, 315–325. Singapore: World Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2016. “Evaluating the Uncertainties.” In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, edited by S. O. Hansson and G. Hirsch Hadorn, 79–105. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hemphill, T. A. 2016. “Responsible Innovation in Industry: A Cautionary Note on Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (1): 81–87. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1178896
   Google Scholar
• Horner, D. S. 2007. “Digital Futures: Promising Ethics and the Ethics of Promising.” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 37 (2): 64–77. doi: 10.1145/1327325.1327330
   Google Scholar
• Hurlbut, J. B., and H. Tiroshi-Samuelson, eds. 2016. Perfecting Human Futures. Transhuman Visions and Technological Imaginations. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Iatridis, K., and D. Schroeder. 2016. Responsible Research and Innovation in Industry. The Case for Corporate Responsibility Tools. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., and S.-H. Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas, H. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (German Original: Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., 1979).
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S., and S. Belucci, eds. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment – European Perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joy, B. 2000. “Why the Future Does not Need Us.” Wired Magazine, no. 8.04, p. 238–263.
   Google Scholar
• Liebert, W., and J. Schmidt, eds. 2010. “Collingridge’s Dilemma and Technoscience.” Poiesis & Praxis, 7, 55–71. doi: 10.1007/s10202-010-0078-2
   Google Scholar
• Lösch, A. 2010. “The Defuturization of the Media: Dynamics in the Visual Constitution of Nanotechnology.” In Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, edited by M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and Ch. Rehmann-Sutter, 141–155. Dordrecht: Springer Science.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27 (2): 268–291. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531
   Google Scholar
• McCray, P. 2013. The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. 1948. “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” The Antioch Review 8 (2): 193–210. doi: 10.2307/4609267
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, A. 2007. “If and Then: A Critique of Speculative Nanoethics.” NanoEthics 1 (1): 31–46. doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann, A. 2014. “Responsible Innovation, the Art and Craft of Future Anticipation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 87–98. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882064
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pellé, S. 2016. “Process, Outcomes, Virtues: the Normative Strategies of Responsible Research and Innovation and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 233–254. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1258945
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot, eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Roache, R. 2008. “Ethics, Speculation, and Values.” NanoEthics 2 (3): 317–327. doi: 10.1007/s11569-008-0050-y
   Google Scholar
• Sand, M. 2016. “Responsibility and Visioneering – Opening Pandora’s box.” NanoEthics 10 (1): 75–86. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0252-7
   Google Scholar
• Selin, C. 2008. “The Sociology of the Future: Tracing Stories of Technology and Time.” Sociology Compass 2: 1878–1895. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00147.x
   Google Scholar
• Shelley-Egan, C. 2011. “ Ethics in practice: responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society.” PhD thesis (doc.utwente.nl/79247/1/thesis_C_Shelley-Egan.pdf; Accessed March 31, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Simakova, E., and C. Coenen. 2013. “Visions, Hype, and Expectations: a Place for Responsibility.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 241–266. Chichester: Wiley.
   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
• Sykes, K., and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Responsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 85–108. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• van den Hoven, J. 2013. “Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 75–84. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• van den Hoven, J., N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops, and H. Romijn, eds. 2014. Responsible Innovation 1. Innovative Solutions for Global Issues. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van der Burg, S. 2014. “On the Hermeneutic Need for Future Anticipation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 99–102. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882556
   Google Scholar
• Vig, N., and H. Paschen, eds. 1999. Parliaments and Technology Assessment. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R., ed. 1999. Democratizing Technology. Theory and Practice of a Deliberative Technology Policy. Hengelo: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2012. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–62. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1946. “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 77–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, A. 2007. “Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room.” Science, Technology and Human Values 32: 458–478. doi: 10.1177/0162243907301004
   Google Scholar
• Woodhouse, E. 2014. Science, Technology and Society. San Diego, CA: University Readers.
   Google Scholar
• Zülsdorf, T. B., C. Coenen, A. Ferrari, U. Fiedeler, C. Milburn, and M. Wienroth, eds. 2011. Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies. Heidelberg: AKA GmbH.
   Google Scholar