Convergence or mediation? Experts of vulnerability and the vulnerability of experts' discourses on nanotechnologies: a case study
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: Innovation - The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, 03.2008, p. 41-64.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Convergence or mediation? Experts of vulnerability and the vulnerability of experts' discourses on nanotechnologies
T2 - a case study
AU - Ott, Ingrid
AU - Papilloud, Christian
PY - 2008/3
Y1 - 2008/3
N2 - Since 2004, risk in the context of nanotechnologies has been criticized as being too abstract and an all-inclusive category. Moreover, the concept of risk is not precise enough to describe the potential issues related to the development of nanotechnologies. Instead, experts on technological development emphasize risk communication. In the field of nanotechnologies, this term was redefined in February 2005 in relation to the question of societal acceptance of nanotechnologies. Risk communication is about gaining stakeholder acceptance of policy decisions, whilst the public and stakeholders are encouraged to participate actively in the communication process through public consultations or hearings. Thus, on the one hand, the category of risk has been pragmatically nuanced to better highlight the vulnerability of the communication of nanotechnologies. On the other hand, this vulnerable communication is not the result of a deficit of information. It is based on the idea of participation, where vulnerability hinges on the social groups specialized in the design, application and diffusion of nanotechnologies within society. How is such participation possible, and what does it entail? We develop this question in the framework of a comparative survey of experts in the development of nanotechnologies in Grenoble (France) and Hamburg (Germany).
AB - Since 2004, risk in the context of nanotechnologies has been criticized as being too abstract and an all-inclusive category. Moreover, the concept of risk is not precise enough to describe the potential issues related to the development of nanotechnologies. Instead, experts on technological development emphasize risk communication. In the field of nanotechnologies, this term was redefined in February 2005 in relation to the question of societal acceptance of nanotechnologies. Risk communication is about gaining stakeholder acceptance of policy decisions, whilst the public and stakeholders are encouraged to participate actively in the communication process through public consultations or hearings. Thus, on the one hand, the category of risk has been pragmatically nuanced to better highlight the vulnerability of the communication of nanotechnologies. On the other hand, this vulnerable communication is not the result of a deficit of information. It is based on the idea of participation, where vulnerability hinges on the social groups specialized in the design, application and diffusion of nanotechnologies within society. How is such participation possible, and what does it entail? We develop this question in the framework of a comparative survey of experts in the development of nanotechnologies in Grenoble (France) and Hamburg (Germany).
KW - Economics
KW - Civil society
KW - Convergence
KW - Experts
KW - Externalities
KW - Mediation
KW - Nanotechnologies
KW - Region
KW - Risk
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42649134518&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13511610802002221
DO - 10.1080/13511610802002221
M3 - Journal articles
VL - 21
SP - 41
EP - 64
JO - Innovation - The European Journal of Social Science Research
JF - Innovation - The European Journal of Social Science Research
SN - 1351-1610
IS - 1
ER -