References

• Alvaredo, F., L. Chancel, T. Piketti, E. Saez, and G. Zucman. 2018. World Inequality Report 2018. World Inequality Lab. https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Alzugaray, S. 2016. “Ciencia-no-hecha y trabajadores del arroz en Uruguay.” Cuadernos de Antropología Social 43: 95–114.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, I. E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. “Danish Participatory Models.” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331–340.
   Google Scholar
• Arancibia, F., and R. Motta. 2019. “Undone Science and Counter-Expertise: Fighting for Justice in an Argentine Community Contaminated by Pesticides.” Science as Culture 28 (3): 277–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barros, S. G. de, and L. M. Vieira-da-Silva,. 2017. “A terapia antirretroviral combinada, a política de controle da Aids e as transformações do Espaço Aids no Brasil dos anos 1990.” Saúde em Debate 41 (spe3): 114–128.
   Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vincent, B. 2012. “Nanotechnology: A New Regime for the Public in Science?” Scientiae Studia 10 (Special issue): 85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Biegelbauer, P., and J. Hansen. 2011. “Democratic Theory and Citizen Participation: Democracy Models in the Evaluation of Public Participation in Science and Technology.” Science and Public Policy 38 (8): 589–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogner, A. 2012. “The Paradox of Participation Experiments.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 37 (5): 506–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortz, G. 2017. “Biotecnologías para el desarrollo inclusivo y sustentable.” Doctoral thesis in Social Sciences, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
   Google Scholar
• Bortz, G., and H. Thomas. 2017. “Biotechnologies for Inclusive Development: Scaling up, Knowledge Intensity and Empowerment (the Case of the Probiotic Yoghurt ‘Yogurito’ in Argentina).” Innovation and Development 7 (1): 37–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2004. Os usos sociais da ciência: Por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. Pierre Bourdieu: Editora UNESP.
   Google Scholar
• Broitman, C., and P. Kreimer. 2018. “Knowledge Production, Mobilization and Standardization in Chile’s HidroAysén Case.” Minerva 56 (2): 209–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M., and F. Neresini. 2008. “Science and Public Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. J. Hackett, and Society for Social Studies of Science, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Published in cooperation with the Society for the Social Studies of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Carty, V. 2002. “Technology and Counter-Hegemonic Movements: The Case of Nike Corporation.” Social Movement Studies 1 (2): 129–146.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H. H. 2014. “Cultures of Visibility and the Shape of Social Controversies in the Global High Tech Electronics Industry.” In Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology and Society, edited by D. L. Kleinman and K. Moore. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
   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
• Choudhury, U. 2012. “The Impact of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Crisis on Anti-Nuclear Movements in India.” Social Alternatives 31 (2): 39–44.
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, J. 2017. “How anti-nuclear movements can really make a difference.” The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/how-anti-nuclear-movements-can-really-make-a-difference-71959.
   Google Scholar
• Dagnino, R. 2014. Tecnologia Social contribuições conceituais e metodológicas. Campina Grande, Nrazil: Editora da Universidade Estadual da Paraíba.
   Google Scholar
• Dagnino, R., and C. Bagattolli. 2009. É possível transformar a Tecnologia Social em Política Pública? XXVII Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología, Buenos Aires.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, P., and H. Macq. 2019. “Breaking Bad with the Participatory Turn? Accelerating Time and Intensifying Value in Participatory Experiments.” Science as Culture, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, R. D. B. 2013. “Tecnologia social e desenvolvimento local: Reflexões a partir da análise do Programa Um Milhão de Cisternas.” Revista Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Regional 1 (2): 173.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., R. E. Goodin, A. Tucker, and B. Reber. 2009. “Promethean Elites Encounter Precautionary Publics: The Case of GM Foods.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 34 (3): 263–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., and A. Tucker. 2008. “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States.” Public Administration Review 68 (5): 864–876.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durant, J. 1999. “Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (5): 313–319.
   Google Scholar
• Eijii, O. 2016. “A New Wave Against the Rock: New Social Movements in Japan Since the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 14 (13): 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, E. F., J. Erling, and T. Breck. 2001. “Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia.” Public Understanding of Science 10: 83–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, D. 2016. “The Alternative Technology Movement: An Early Green Radical Challenge.” Science as Culture 25 (3): 386–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. 1995. “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 20 (4): 408–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETC Group. 2003. The Big Down: Atomtech—Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. ETC (Erosion Technology and Concentration). http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=375.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2004. Governance of the European Research Area: Giving Society a Key to the Lab. Luzembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Fan, M. F. 2015. “Evaluating the 2008 Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Foods in Taiwan.” Public Understanding of Science 24 (5): 533–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. 1995. Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. 2009. “Ciencia, tecnología y democracia: Distinciones y conexiones.” Scientiæ Studia 7 (1): 63–81.
   Google Scholar
• Feldhoff, T. 2014. “Post-Fukushima Energy Paths: Japan and Germany Compared.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70 (6): 87–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., and M. Fochler. 2010. “Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-Scribing Publics in Public Engagement.” Minerva 48 (3): 219–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, B. 2006. “The Transformation of Open Source Software.” MIS Quarterly 30 (3): 587–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foladori, G., and N. Invernizzi. 2019. “Perspectivas e intereses en la construcción de normas de salud ocupacional: El caso de las nanopartículas de plata.” Vigilância Sanitária em Debate 7 (2): 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Fressoli, M., R. Dias, and H. Thomas. 2014. “Innovation and Inclusive Development in the South: A Critical Perspective.” In Beyond Imported Magic, edited by E. Medina, I. da Costa Marques, and C. Holmes, 47–66. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, D. M. 2017. “Fukushima in Brazil: Undone Science, Technophilia, Epistemic Murk.” Culture, Theory and Critique 58 (4): 391–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grangeiro, A., L. Laurindo, and P. R. Teixeira. 2009. “Resposta à aids no Brasil: Contribuições dos movimentos sociais e da reforma sanitária.” Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 26 (1): 87–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe.” Minerva 44 (2): 167–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper, P. 2016. “Alternative Technology and Social Organisation in an Institutional Setting.” Science as Culture 25 (3): 415–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J. 2007. Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an era of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J. 2010. “Environmental Reform Organizations and Undone Science in the United States: Exploring the Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications of Nanotechnology.” Science as Culture 19 (2): 181–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J. 2011. “To Tell the Truth: On Scientific Counterpublics.” Public Understanding of Science 20 (5): 627–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J. 2016. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch, O. N. 2015. “O parto “natural” e “humanizado” na visão de mulheres de camadas médias e populares no Rio de Janeiro.” Civitas – Revista de Ciências Sociais 15 (2): 229.
   Google Scholar
• Hobsbawm, E. J. 1952. “The Machine Breakers.” Past and Present 1: 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and T. O’riordan. 2006. “On Evaluating the “GM Nation?” Public Debate About the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain.” New Genetics and Society 25 (3): 265–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horning, G. 1999. “Citizens’ Panels.” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 351–359.
   Google Scholar
• International Center for Technology Assessment. 2007. Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials. Center for Technology Assessment. http://www.icta.org/files/2012/04/080112_ICTA_rev1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Invernizzi, N. 2004. “Participación ciudadana en ciencia y tecnología en América Latina: Una oportunidad para refundar el compromiso social de la universidad pública.” Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad 1 (2): 67–83.
   Google Scholar
• Invernizzi, N., and G. Foladori. 2013. “Posições de Sindicatos e ONGs sobre os riscos e a regulação da nanotecnologia.” Vigilância Sanitária em Debate 1 (4): 72–84.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2001. “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Bioscience.” Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®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
• Jasanoff, S. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41: 223–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2004. “Science and Citizenship: A New Synergy.” Science and Public Policy 31 (2): 90–94.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2006. “Biotechnology and Empire: The Global Power of Seeds and Science.” Osiris, 273–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2007. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jobin, P., H. H. Chen, and Y. Lin. 2018. Translating Toxic Exposure: Taiwan RCA. Toxic News. https://toxicnews.org/2018/02/01/translating-toxic-exposure-taiwan-rca/.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S. 1999. “Public Participation in Science and Technology Policy –and Decision-Making – Ephemeral Phenomenon or Lasting Change?” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 290–293.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. P. 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 16 (1): 57–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent, B. 2009. Replicating Participatory Devices: The Consensus Conference Confronts Nanotechnology (CSI Working Papers Series No 018). Centre de Sociologie de ĺinnovation. Mines Paris Tech. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00441232.
   Google Scholar
• Leão, M. R. de C., M. L. G. Riesco, C. A. Schneck, and M. Angelo. 2013. “Reflexões sobre o excesso de cesarianas no Brasil e a autonomia das mulheres.” Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 18 (8): 2395–2400.
   Google Scholar
• Lengwiler, M. 2008. “Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology. Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (2): 186–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. 2007. “European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy?” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal 1 (1): 19–51.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N., and J. Lezaun. 2011. “Materials and Devices of the Public: An Introduction.” Economy and Society 40 (4): 489–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marris, C., and P.-B. Joly. 1999. “Between Consensus and Citizens: Public Participation in Technology Assessment in France.” Science Studies 12 (2): 3–32.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, S. 2009. Mobilizing Science: Movements, Participation, and the Remaking of Knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirowski, P., and E.-M. Sent. 2008. “The Commercialization of Science and the Response of STS.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. J. Hackett, and Society for Social Studies of Science, 635–689. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Published in cooperation with the Society for the Social Studies of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, K. 1996. “Organizing Integrity: American Science and the Creation of Public Interest Organizations, 1955-1975.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (6): 1592–1627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, K., D. L. Kleinman, D. Hess, and S. Frickel. 2011. “Science and Neoliberal Globalization: A Political Sociological Approach.” Theory and Society 40 (5): 505–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moro, A. 2017. Participação social e regulação de medicamentos: O caso da talidomida no Brasil. [Doctoral Thesis in Public Policy]. Universidade Federal do Paraná.
   Google Scholar
• Nishizawa, M. 2005. “Citizen Deliberations on Science and Technology and Their Social Environments: Case Study on the Japanese Consensus Conference on GM Crops.” Science and Public Policy 32 (6): 479–489.
   Google Scholar
• Novaes, H. T. 2007. “De tsunami a marola: Uma breve história das fábricas recuperadas na América Latina.” Lutas & Resistências 2: 84–97.
   Google Scholar
• O’Doherty, K., and E. F. Einsiedel. 2013. Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ottinger, G. 2013. “Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights Into Procedural Justice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (2): 250–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parra Romero, A. 2019. “Producción y movilización de conocimiento en conflictos socioambientales: Estudio de caso del conflicto por minería a gran escala y defensa del agua en el páramo de Santurbán—Colombia.” Doctoral thesis in Science and Techology Policy, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
   Google Scholar
• Pelaez, V., and W. Schmidt. 2000. “A difusão dos OGM no Brasil: Imposição e resistências.” Estudos Sociedade e Agricultura 8 (1): 5–31.
   Google Scholar
• Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2002. “The Involvement of Patients’ Associations in Research.” International Social Science Journal 54 (171): 57–63.
   Google Scholar
• Raloff, J. 1998. “Democratizing Science.” Science 54 (19): 298–230.
   Google Scholar
• Reis, M. J. 2009. “O movimento dos atingidos por barragens: Atores, estratégias de luta e conquistas.” In Lutas camponesas contemporâneas: Condições, dilemas e conquistas, edited by B. M. Fernandes, L. S. de Medeiros, and M. I. S. Paulilo, 265–286. São Paulo: Editora UNESP; Núcleo de Estudos Agrários e Desenvolvimento Rural.
   Google Scholar
• Renfrew, D. 2017. “Spectral Science: Tracing the Conflict Zones of Uruguayan Lead Poisoning.” Culture, Theory and Critique 58 (4): 375–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucht, D. 1990. “Campaigns, Skirmishes and Battles: Anti-Nuclear Movements in the USA, France and West Germany.” Industrial Crisis Quarterly 4 (3): 193–222.
   Google Scholar
• Schrögel, P., and A. Kolleck. 2019. “The Many Faces of Participation in Science. Literature Review and Proposal for a Three-Dimensional Framework.” Science & Technology Studies 32 (2): 77–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurman, R., and W. A. Munro. 2010. Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists Versus Agribusiness in the Struggle Over Biotechnology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. “The Emergence of a Competitiveness Research and Development Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 21 (3): 303–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. 2003. “Transforming Technological Regimes for Sustainable Development: A Role for Alternative Technology Niches?” Science and Public Policy 30 (2): 127–135.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. 2005. “The Alternative Technology Movement: an Analysis of its Framing and Negotiation of Technology Development.” Human Ecology Review 12 (2): 106–119.
   Google Scholar
• Söderberg, J. 2008. Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, H., L. Becerra, and F. Picabea. 2014. “Colaboración, producción e innovación: Una propuesta analítica y normativa para el desarrollo inclusivo.” Astrolabio 4: 4–42.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, H., M. Fressoli, and L. Becerra. 2012. “Science and Technology Policy and Social ex/Inclusion: Analyzing Opportunities and Constraints in Brazil and Argentina.” Science and Public Policy 39 (5): 579–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, H., P. Juárez, and F. Picabea. 2015. ¿Qué son las tecnologías para la inclusión social? Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, C. 2010. “Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy.” Minerva 48 (4): 389–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tornquist, C. S. 2004. “Parto e poder: O movimento pela humanização do parto no Brasil.” Tese de Doutorado em Antropologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
   Google Scholar
• Triste, E., C. Engeman, and H. Cruz. 2012. “Nano Regulatory Policy and NGOs: A Global View.” Annual meeting of the society for the study of nanotechnology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands, outubro 22.
   Google Scholar
• Tyfield, D. 2012. “A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis.” Minerva 50 (2): 149–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyfield, D., R. Lave, S. Randalls, and C. Thorpe. 2017. “Introduction. Beyond Crisis in the Knowledge Economy.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science, 1–18. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ureta, S. 2016. “A Failed Platform: The Citizen Consensus Conference Travels to Chile.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4): 499–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, P., and S. Walgrave. 2002. “New Media, new Movements? The Role of Internet in Shaping the “Anti-Globalization” Movement.” Information, Communication & Society 5 (4): 465–493.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bouwel, J., and M. Van Oudheusden. 2017. “Participation Beyond Consensus? Technology Assessments, Consensus Conferences and Democratic Modulation.” Social Epistemology 31 (6): 497–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vara, A. M. 2007. ““Sí a la vida, no a las papeleras”. En torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina.” Redes 12 (25): 15–49.
   Google Scholar
• Vasi, I. 2009. “Social Movements and Industry Development: The Environmental Movement’s Impact on the Wind Energy Industry.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 14 (3): 315–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidal, M. 2000. “Cooperación sin mando: Una introducción al software libre.” https://e-tcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vidal_-cooperacion_sin_mando.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Warheit, D. B. 2018. “Hazard and Risk Assessment Strategies for Nanoparticle Exposures: How far Have we Come in the Past 10 Years?” F1000Research 7: 376.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2007. “Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal 1: 99–110.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2014. “Desafios ativistas à democracia deliberativa.” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política 13: 187–212.
   Google Scholar