Narrative as a resource for inclusive governance: a UK–Brazil comparison of public responses to nanotechnology

References

• Barben, D. , E. Fisher , C. Selin , and D. Guston . 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , edited by E. Hackett , M. Lynch , and J. Wajcman , 3rd ed., 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 1992. The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity . London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 2000. World Risk Society . Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 2009. World at Risk . Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. , A. Giddens , and S. Lash . 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order . Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J. 2000. “De Rerum Natura.” Strategies: Journal of Theory, Culture & Politics 13 (1): 9–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bhadra Haines, M. 2020. “(Nation) Building Civic Epistemologies around Nuclear Energy in India.” Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1771145.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, D. , A. Dijstra , C. Fautz , J. S. Guivant , K. Konrad , and C. Shelley-Egan , eds. 2017. The Politics and Situatedness of Emerging Technologies . Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellchaft- AKA.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess, M. 2014. “From ‘Trust US’ to Participatory Governance: Deliberative Publics and Science Policy.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 48–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelfranchi, Y. , E. Meire Vilela , L. Barreto de Lima , I. de Castro Moreira , and L. Massarana . 2013. “Brazilian Opinions About Science and Technology: The ‘Paradox’ of the Relation between Information and Attitudes.” História, Ciências, Saúde–Manguinhos 30 (1). doi:10.1590/S0104-59702013000400005.
   Google Scholar
• Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos (CGEE) . 2015. Percepção Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia. Ciência e Tecnologia no Olhar dos Brasileiro: Sumário Executivo . Brasília: CGEE.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. , and M. Kearnes . 2016. “Participation in the Making.” In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics , edited by J. Chilvers , and M. Kearnes , 31–64. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. , and M. Kearnes . 2020. “Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 45 (3): 347–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, A. , K. Parkhill , N. Pidgeon , and N. Vaughan . 2013. “Messing with Nature? Exploring Public Perceptions of Geoengineering in the UK.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 938–947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. , P. Macnaghten , and M. Kearnes 2009. Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy (Part 1 of the Report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology) . Durham: Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, P. 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation as a Travesty of Technology Assessment?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 278–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doezema, T. , A.-M. Forsberg , D. Ludwig , P. Macnaghten , and S. Shelley-Egan . 2019. “Translation, Transduction, and Transformation: Expanding Practices of Responsibility Across Borders.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (3): 323–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuy, J.-P. 2007. “Some Pitfalls in the Philosophical Foundations of Nanoethics.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3): 237–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETC . 2003. The Big Down. Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nanoscale . Winnipeg, MB: Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission . 2004. Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology . Brussels: Communication of the European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission . 2013. Fact Sheet: Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020. Accessed August 10, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/FactSheet_Science_with_and_for_Society.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U. , B. Wynne , M. Callon , M. Gonçalves , S. Jasanoff , M. Jepsen , P.-B. Joly , et al. 2007. Taking European Knowledge Seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, Economy and Society Directorate, EUR 2 (2700). Directorate-General for Research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Accessed August 10, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. , R. Mahajan , and C. Mitcham . 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496.
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact . Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, P. , and J. S. Guivant . 2019. “A dramaturgia dos peritos na ciência regulatória brasileira: o caso da Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (CTNBio).” História, Ciência, Saúde – Manguinho 26 (1): 123–144.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1999. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives . London: Profile.
   Google Scholar
• Grove-White, R. , P. Macnaghten , S. Mayer , and B. Wynne . 1997. Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain . Lancaster, UK : CSEC.
   Google Scholar
• Grove-White, R. , P. Macnaghten , and B. Wynne . 2000. Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies . Lancaster, UK : CSEC.
   Google Scholar
• Guivant, J. S. 2002. “Heterogeneous and Unconventional Coalitions Around Global Food Risks: Integrating Brazil Into the Debates.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 4 (2): 231–245.
   Google Scholar
• Guivant, J. S. 2006. “Transgênicos e percepção pública da ciência no Brasil.” Ambiente & Sociedade 9: 81–103.
   Google Scholar
• Guivant, J. S. 2008. “Cosmopolitanism and Environmental Sociology: an Analysis of the GMO Debate in Brazil.” In Understanding Global Environment , edited by S. Dasgupta , 354–380. New Delhi: Pierce Education.
   Google Scholar
• Guivant, J. S. , and P. Macnagthen . 2015. “An Analysis of the GM Crop Debate in Brazil.” In Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops , edited by P. Macnaghten , and S. Carro-Ripalda , 74–104. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, D. , and D. Sarewitz . 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1–2): 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. 1992. “‘Style’ for Historians and Philosophers.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23 (1): 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HM Government . 2010. UK Nanotechnologies Strategy: Small Technologies, Great Opportunities . London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• HM Treasury . 2004. Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014 . London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann-Reim, H. , and B. Wynne . 2002. “In Risk Analysis One Has to Admit Ignorance.” Nature 416 (14): 123.
   Google Scholar
• Horst, M. , and A. Irwin . 2010. “Nations at Ease with Radical Knowledge: on Consensus, Consensusing and False Consensusness.” Social Studies of Science 40 (1): 105–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Lords . 2000. Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology . London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2006. “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 299–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2008. “STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , edited by E. Hackett , O. Amsterdamska , M. Lynch , and J. Wajcman , 583–607. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2014. “From Deficit to Democracy (re-Visited).” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 71–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2016. “On the Local Constitution of Global Futures. Science and Democratic Engagement in a Decentred World..” Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies 3 (2): 24–33.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3): 223–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. , ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order . New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2006. “Technology as a Site and Object of Politics.” In Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis , edited by C. Tilly , and R. Goodin , 745–763. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2014. “A Mirror for Science.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2016. The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future . New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. , and S. Kim . 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva 47: 119–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. , and S. Kim , eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power . Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jornal da Ciencia . 2019. SBPC convoca mobilização nacional contra cortes em CT&I. 24 April 2019. Accessed August 10, 2020. http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br/sbpc-convoca-mobilizacao-nacional-contra-cortes-em-cti-2/.
   Google Scholar
• Joy, B. 2000. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired 8 (1): 238–262.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2008. “‘It’s the Development, Stupid!’ or How to Modernize Modernization?” Accessed August 10, 2020. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/107-NORDHAUS&SHELLENBERGER.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyds of London . 2007. Nanotechnology, Recent Developments, Risks and Opportunities . London: Lloyds Emerging Risks Team Report.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig, D. , and P. Macnaghten . 2020. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Innovation Governance: A Framework for Responsible and Just Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 26–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B.-A. , and S. Borrás . 2006. “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation , edited by J. Fagerberg , D. Mowery , and R. Nelson , 599–631. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2004. “Animals in Their Nature: a Case Study of Public Attitudes on Animals, Genetic Modification and ‘Nature’.” Sociology 38 (3): 533–551.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2010. “Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative Structures, Public Responses and Emerging Nanotechnologies.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42: 23–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2017. “Focus Groups as Anticipatory Methodology: A Contribution from Science and Technology Studies Towards Socially-Resilient Governance.” In A New Era of Focus Group Research , edited by R. Barbour , and D. Morgan , 343–363. Basingstoke, UK : Palgrove.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2020a. “Towards an Anticipatory Public Engagement Methodology: Deliberative Experiments in the Assembly of Possible Worlds Using Focus Groups.” Qualitative Research . doi:10.1177/1468794120919096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. 2020b. The Making of Responsible Innovation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. , and J. Chilvers . 2014. “The Future of Science Governance: Publics, Policies, Practices.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (3): 530–548.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. , S. Davies , and M. Kearnes . 2019. “Understanding Public Responses to Emerging Technologies: a Narrative Approach.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Poliy . doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. , and J. S. Guivant . 2011. “Converging Citizens? Nanotechnology and the Political Imaginary of Public Engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom.” Public Understanding of Science 20 (2): 207–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. , and B. Szerszynski . 2013. “Living the Global Social Experiment: An Analysis of Public Discourse on Solar Radiation Management and its Implications for Governance.” Global Environmental Change 23 (2): 465–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahr, A. , C. Göbel , A. Irwin , and K. Vohland . 2018. “Watching or Being Watched. Enhancing Productive Discussion between the Citizen Sciences, the Social Sciences and the Humanities.” In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy , edited by S. Hecker , M. Haklay , A. Bowser , Z. Makuch , J. Vogel , and A. Bonn , 99–109. London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro, M. 2020. “Science is a war Zone: Some Comments on Brazil.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 3 (1): 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council [NRC] . 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council [NRC] . 1987. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council [NRC] . 1989. Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council [NRC] . 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council [NRC] . 1996. Understanding Risk . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R. , and M. Pansera . 2019. “Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Handbook on Science and Public Policy , edited by D. Simon , S. Kuhlmann , J. Stamm , and W. Canzler , 26–48. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R. , P. Macnaghten , and J. Stilgoe . 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pansera, M. , and R. Owen . 2018. “RRI-Practice Report from National Case Study: United Kingdom, D.5.1.” Accessed August 10, 2020. https://www.rri-practice.eu/knowledge-repository/publications-and-deliverables/.
   Google Scholar
• Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies . New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Petherick, A. 2017. “Funding: Austerity Bites Deeply.” Nature 548 (7666): 249–251.
   Google Scholar
• Reyes-Galindo, L. , and M. Monteiro . 2018. “RRI-Practice Report from National Case Study: Brazil, D.13.1.” Accessed August 10, 2020. https://www.rri-practice.eu/knowledge-repository/publications-and-deliverables/.
   Google Scholar
• Reyes-Galindo, L. , M. Monteiro , and P. Macnaghten . 2019. “‘Opening UP’ Science Policy: Engaging with RRI in Brazil.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (3): 353–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A. , T. Misa , and J. Schot , eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment . London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Roco, M. , and W. Bainbridge , eds. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science . Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution (RCEP) . 1998. Setting Environmental Standards . 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) . 2008. Novel Materials in the Environment: The Case of Nanotechnology . 27th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London: The Stationery Office
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J. , and W. E. Steinmueller . 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47: 1554–1567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J. , S. Lock , and J. Wilsdon . 2014. “Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 4–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J. , R. Owen , and P. Macnaghten . 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 1998. “Risk at a Turning Point?” Journal of Risk Research 1 (2): 97–109.
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, G. , A. Mamidipudi , P. Pandey , and W. Bijker . 2020. “Responsible Innovation as Empowering Ways of Knowing.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 6–25.
   Web of Science ®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 , M. Heintz , and J. Bessant , 75–84. London: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt, C. , and C. Polino , eds. 2003. Percepcão Pública da Ciencia: Resultados da Pesquisa na Argentina, Brasil, Espanha e Uruguai [Public Perceptions of Science: Results from Ressearch in Argentina, Brazil, Spain and Uruguay]. Campinas: UNI- CAMP/FAPESP.
   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. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, J. , and R. Willis . 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream . London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, L. 1989. The Whale and the Reactor . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittrock, C. , E.-M. Forsberg , A. Pols , P. Macnaghten , and D. Ludwig . 2020. National and Organisational Conditions for Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation . Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, P.-H. 2016. “Responsible Innovation for Decent Nonliberal Peoples: A Dilemma?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 154–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2002. “Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?” Current Sociology 50 (3): 459–477.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science–Hitting the Notes, But Missing the Music?” Community Genetics 9 (3): 211–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar