Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies:
A Review of the International Literature
Prepared by Dr Sarah Davies, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Commissioned under the National Enabling Technologies Strategies to set the scene for a
STEP engagement of the same name.
1. Introduction
This literature review considers the societal implications of enabling technologies. By
reviewing the international literature in this area – including the grey literature of policy
reports, thinktank studies and government documents as well as academic research – it
sets the scene for results from a recent deliberative workshop considering Societal
Implications of Enabling Technologies, held under the Science & Technology Engagement
Pathways (STEP) framework. It concludes with a brief discussion of how this literature
prefigures or contrasts with findings from the STEP workshop.
In what follows a number of specific areas are explored. First, the scene is set through
consideration of the wider dynamics shaping technological development and societal
impacts. Second, the ways in which publics have assessed the implications of new and
emerging technologies are discussed through a focus on quantitative and qualitative
studies of public opinion and perceptions of technology. Third, deliberative and
participatory processes that have taken place internationally in this area are reviewed.
Fourth, specialist accounts regarding the societal implications of technologies – such as
those from ethicists, philosophers and policy makers – are covered. The final section
concludes the review by summarising the key themes that emerge from this literature as a
whole, noting key divergences that appear across different national contexts and between
different technological application areas, and making a brief comparison with the STEP
workshop.
The scope of this review is thus the societal implications of enabling technologies. ‘Societal
implications’ are understood broadly, as including all issues around how technologies
affect people individually and collectively, such as effects on work, lifestyles, relationships,
and culture, and on values such as equity, privacy and choice. ‘Enabling technologies’ is a
relatively specialised term that covers “the bio- and nano-enabling technologies,
converging with information technologies and cognitive science” (National Enabling
Technologies Strategy Expert Forum 2012, 1). In this review, nanotechnology,
biotechnology and synthetic biology are a particular focus. There is also an overlap with
terms such as ‘converging technologies’, ‘emerging technologies’ and ‘platform
technologies’, and these have been included in the literature search. A full list of the search
terms used can be found in the Appendix, along with a complete bibliography.
2. The context: Decision making in conditions of complexity and uncertainty
The context for this discussion, and of the STEP workshop itself, is the increasingly complex
nature of contemporary technological society. A number of scholars have argued that the
times we live in are unprecedented in the degree to which trends such as globalisation,
cosmopolitanism, and an ever-faster increase in the complexity of technological systems
are presenting new challenges for democracy on both the macro and micro levels (see, for
instance, Appiah et al 2007; Giddens 1990; Weinberg 1972). Ulrich Beck has suggested that
we now live in a ‘risk society’, in which the management and distribution of long-term,
unanticipated and often invisible risks has replaced that of wealth (Beck 1992). Others
have argued that developed world nations are transitioning from ‘Mode 1’ to ‘Mode 2’
societies, where science and society are more closely intertwined through new processes of
innovation (Gibbons et al 1994; Nowotny et al 2001); or that scientific research is in the
process of moving into a ‘postnormal’ mode better able to manage uncertainties and take a
problem-solving approach (Funcowitz and Ravetz 1993; Sardar 2010). Many of these
accounts suggest that new stakeholders must be integrated into – or at least considered by
– decision making processes, and thus that uncertainties can best be managed by the
“inclusion of an ever-growing set of legitimate participants in the process of quality
assurance of … scientific inputs” (Funcowitz and Ravetz 1993, 752).
The economic structure of these developments has also been a focus of attention.
Innovation studies has, as a discipline, tended to assume a linear model of technological
development (derived originally from the work of Joseph Schumpeter): basic science
discovers natural phenomena, basic technology works out applications from this
knowledge, and new high-tech industries develop to commercialise these applications,
bringing economic growth to a particular region or country (Betz 2011; Fagerberg and
Verspagen 2009). This one-way model, though still influential, has been widely challenged:
it ignores the ways in which society itself affects the innovation process, and
underestimates the degree to which technologies evolve and are finessed throughout their
development and subsequent use (Joly and Kaufman 2008; Kline and Rosenburg 1986).
Recent research has suggested that successfully transferring knowledge between
university and industrial contexts – sites which operate under different assumptions, and
which utilise rather different kinds of knowledge – requires a high degree of specialist
support, such as that provided by technology transfer offices or specialised university spinouts (Fontes 2005; Guena and Muscio 2009). Geography (such as the existence of
‘innovation clusters’) also appears to be a key factor in whether knowledge transfer,
successful product development, and economic growth occurs (Tödtling and Trippl 2005).
This complexity means that economic and societal impacts of new technologies remain
fundamentally difficult to forecast (Porter et al 2011). Despite this, strong expectations
remain that emerging technologies will bring about economic impacts, and that these will
be positive (Lloyds 2007; Lundvall and Borrás 2005; National Enabling Technologies
Strategy Expert Forum 2012; Silberglitt et al 2006), with effects such as increased
efficiency in production processes as well as the development of new commercial products
(Seear et al 2009).
Historically, rapid technological development has brought concerns regarding workforce
impacts and, in particular, the possibility of unemployment through technological
‘replacement’ of workers (Carter 1981; Jones 1990; Woirol 1996). In the most recent case
of ICTs, for instance, there were concerns regarding unemployment resulting from
automation, outsourcing, and increased casualisation (Freeman and Soete 1994; Noble
1995). Labour force restructuring has certainly taken place over the last decades, but, as
Baldoz et al note (2001), it is difficult to disentangle the role of technological change from
that of economic and political transition within this. And thus far there has been
surprisingly little attention paid to the potential of enabling technologies to disrupt
employment structure and levels (Invernizzi 2011). It certainly seems likely that there will
be impacts in terms of workplace safety – for instance in the context of nanotechnology,
where there are specific health concerns regarding the effects of nanoparticles on workers
(ibid). Similarly, there are calls for workforces with particular technical skillsets, and
concern over the potential for employment disruption as old technologies are replaced by
new ones (Freeman and Shukla 2008; Invernizzi 2011; Van Horn and Fichtner 2008).
The broader context of the development of enabling technologies is thus one of profound
uncertainty: their economic, technical, and societal impacts are all difficult to forecast
(Sutcliffe and Hodgson 2006). A number of strategies have been used in an attempt to
manage these uncertainties, including roadmapping and technology assessment, stepped
decision making such as STAGE gating, and early stakeholder engagement (Fleischer et al
2005; Funcowitz and Ravetz 1993; Macnaghten and Owen 2011). Technology assessment
(TA), in particular, has a long history in North America and Europe, and has been used as a
means of integrating scientific and societal analysis (Fleischer et al 2005; Guston and
Sarewitz 2002). Forms of TA such as constructive TA (CTA) or real time TA (RTTA), for
instance, bring an explicit focus on multi-stakeholder deliberation alongside scientific
roadmapping and risk assessment (ibid; Hellström 2003; Sclove 2010). Most recently, the
notion of ‘responsible innovation’ has been used as a means of drawing together
approaches such as public engagement, the use of soft law, and continual assessment of
impacts in order to make robust decisions on technological development (DG Research
2011; Owen and Goldberg 2010; Stilgoe 2012).
3. Public assessments of the societal implications of emerging technologies
3a. Quantitative research
After a series of very public, and high profile, scientific controversies over agricultural
biotechnologies in Europe in the 1990s (see Horlick-Jones et al 2007), there was increased
interest in understanding public opinion on new and emerging technologies. Much of this
took the form of quantitative survey research. Such research sought to reach
demographically representative samples in order to chart a number of aspects of public
opinion: knowledge of such technologies (for instance, do laypeople understand the concept
of the nanoscale? Waldron et al 2006); opinions towards them (how positively they view
particular technologies, for example; Bainbridge 2002); and the factors that structure or
influence the formation of such opinions (for instance, the impact of religiosity; Brossard et
al 2009). Many studies in the second and third categories incorporate attention to the ways
in which publics assess the societal implications of emerging technologies.
This body of literature is now a substantial one, often drawing on the secondary analysis of
large (sometimes transnational) datasets such as the Eurobarometer Survey (see Gaskell et
al 2005) or US telephone surveys on nanotechnology (Scheufele et al 2007). This section
focuses on the results of meta-analyses or reviews of this work (with a fuller bibliography
given in the Appendix).1 Perceptions of risks and benefits have been a central theme in
survey research. Satterfield et al, in a 2009 synthesis, found 22 risk perception surveys
relating to nanotechnology, and were able to perform a meta-analysis of results from these.
They found, as expected, that public knowledge was low: internationally, over 50% of
respondants reported knowing ‘nothing at all’ about nanotechnology. They also found no
clear trend of increasing knowledge over time. As in earlier surveys, however, they also
found that in most studies lay respondants saw benefits as outweighing risks – though this
was alongside 44% of respondants across the pooled surveys reporting not being sure
whether this would be the case. The authors use these findings to argue that, currently,
public opinion of nanotechnology is likely to be highly malleable. Publics have ‘suspended
judgement’ on the technology; currently, it seems that trust (in, for example, regulatory
authorities) often acts as a heuristic for assessments of benefits and risks.
Besley, in a broader review of public perceptions of nanotechnology (2010), similarly
emphasises that trust has emerged as a key dynamic in public opinion formation. He
focuses on what is often called the ‘familiarity hypothesis’ – the notion that low awareness
correlates to high risk perception, and vice versa. While it is often anticipated that
increased knowledge will lead to more positive perceptions of science, there is little
evidence for this: though basic science literacy seems to slightly increase perceptions of
nanotechnology, non-awareness variables (such as trust and overall worldview) seem to be
more significant in shaping risk-benefit perceptions. Thus a high degree of trust in
scientists, government regulators, and business leaders are all good predictors of positive
views on nanotechnology. Religiosity similarly seems to be an important part of the
backdrop of opinion formation, with strength of religious belief correlating with lack of
support for nanotechnology funding (Brossard et al 2009).
Besley also notes that there are some demographic correlations to perceptions of
nanotechnology, with men, older respondants, and those with higher relative levels of
education and income all seeming to be more positive towards the technology. In contrast
Siegrist (2010), in another review of public perception studies, emphasises instead that
techological application area is an important factor in structuring public opinion – thus
applications of nanotechnology in food and health are seen as more risky than those in, for
example, construction or energy. ‘Tangible benefits’, where clear, near-term advantages to
laypeople are apparent in a technology’s development, also appear to be important for
positive assessments. And rather more abstractly, recent work has looked at the effects of
affect and values. Kahan et al (2009) argue that where there are strong emotions towards
science, additional knowledge about nanotechnology may only act to further polarise these.
These reviews all focus specifically on nanotechnology (though see Siegrist 2010 for a discussion of how
perceptions of nanotechnology relate to those of other technologies, such as biotechnology). Perceptions
studies of other technologies (such as synthetic biology or genetic technologies) have shown similar results
(Barnett et al 2007; Druckmen and Bolsen 2011; Peter D Hart Research Associates 2009).
1
3b. Qualitative research
Survey research therefore provides a good sense of the degree of familiarity of particular
populations (especially well-studied North Americans and Europeans) with emerging
technologies, the informal risk-benefit calculations they tend to make, and the kinds of
factors (such as trust in governance) that appear to influence their assessments of it.
However, there are a number of limitations to such research, including that surveys have
tended to utilise a framing in which risk is the assumed key point of interest for publics
with regard to new technologies (Macnaghten and Urry 1998). Qualitative research is able
to circumvent at least some of these limitations in order to present a richer sense of the
ways in which publics approach and assess technologies. Again, this section focuses on a
number of key reviews of such research as representative of a wider literature. A 2007
report by the UK’s Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) summarises the findings of
key UK research on public engagement on nanotechnology up until that point. The NEG
report synthesises these findings in the form of recommendations for science policy and for
public engagement, suggesting that there are three key areas consistently raised by lay
publics deliberating nanotechnology. First, public attitudes are formed not only in relation
to the nature of particular technologies, but also to the policies and values that shape the
direction of their development. Public participants were thus not only concerned with the
potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies, but also with broader questions
concerning whom such benefits and risks are most likely to affect and how research
priorities are set. Second, public attitudes to risk, uncertainty, and regulation were found to
be interconnected with the perceived ability of regulation and regulatory authorities to
manage complex risks. Publics certainly expressed concerns about risk, but these related
more to the possibility of governance in the face of uncertainty, the current lack of
appropriate regulation, and the ways in which benefits and risks will be distributed, both
nationally and globally, than to the danger of physical hazard posed by certain forms of
nanotechnology. Third, there was a consistent demand for more open discussion and public
involvement in policymaking relating to the management of nanotechnology. There were
thus requests for greater access to information, increased openess and transparency on the
part of government and science, and for opportunities for publics to be involved in the
management of nanotechnology policy through further public engagement.
Though the NEG report focuses on the UK context, these are issues that repeatedly surface
within research on emerging technologies internationally (Burri and Belluci 2008; Dijkstra
and Guteling 2012; Hamlett et al 2009; Pidgeon et al 2009: Priest et al 2011). In particular,
a number of studies have charted a strong sense of ambivalence towards emerging
technologies: participants in research, once introduced to nanotechnology and its probable
applications, are often rather pragmatic regarding it (Burri and Belluci 2008). Certainly
they can see potential benefits (again, medical technologies are a particular area of
enthusiasm; Opinion Leader 2007), but they can also see pitfalls and risks and thereby may
choose to withhold judgement until it becomes clearer how the technology is to be
regulated and made accessible to all (Kearnes and Wynne 2007). For this reason public
responses have been characterised as viewing (nano)technology as a double-edged sword
(Kearnes et al 2007).
In addition to charting the content of public responses, more recent research has sought to
understand the ways in which national or cultural imaginations structure the dynamics of
public perceptions of technology. This has been framed as attention to the kinds of cultural
narratives that are mobilised in the context of unfamiliar technological developments.
Davies and Macnaghten (2010), for instance, analysed UK focus group discussion of
nanotechnology to look at the content and expression of public responses. The content of
public concerns that they describe is familiar from other studies, and includes anxieties
around disruption of natural orders, the way in which the technology is to be controlled,
and the unhealthy degree to which it seems to be focused on consumer products rather
than ‘social needs’ (Davies et al 2009). However, they also argue that these concerns are
articulated through a set of five narratives drawn from the surrounding culture. These
themes, which they summarise as ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’, ‘kept in the
dark’, ‘opening Pandora’s box’, ‘messing with nature’, and ‘be careful what you wish for’, act
as resources which laypeople can use to develop positions on unfamiliar technologies such
as nano. The specific, cultural groundedness of such narrative resources is supported not
only by reflection on their history and mythic character (Dupuy 2010) but also by the
presence of somewhat different narratives in South America (Macnaghten and Guivant
2011). Such national differences can be related to what Jasanoff has described as civic
epistemologies: characteristic forms of public knowledge regarding, for instance, the
nature of the policy process or of what constitutes ‘sound science’ (Jasanoff 2005; Miller
2008). Understanding different civic epistemologies will therefore help to understand the
different assumptions that both lay publics and policy makers are likely to deploy as they
negotiate the nature and correct management of emerging technologies.
4. Public participation in the governance of emerging technologies
Interest in public participation in science and technology has increased in recent years,
emerging from a highly localised activity in the 1980s to become an international
phenomenon (Mejlgaard and Bloch 2012; Shirk et al 2012). Over this period substantive
content areas deliberated have tended to track areas of science and technology currently
viewed as politically or publically live. Thus early participatory processes explored
agricultural biotechnologies and genetic modification, before nanotechnology became ‘the
next GM’ (Randles 2008) and a focus for deliberation. Most recently, synthetic biology,
climate change and geoengineering have been key topic areas for participatory processes.
Formats for participation have varied widely: the consensus conference – a highly
structured deliberative process, in which a representative lay panel is able to explore a
particular question by interrogating expert witnesses, before producing a set of consensusbased recommendations – is often viewed as paradigmatic, but less structured activities,
such as workshops, focus groups or online consultations, have also been used (Andersen
and Jaeger 1999; Rowe and Frewer 2005). Similarly, what ‘participation’ means has been
interpreted flexibly. A few processes have claimed to feed their results directly into
scientific or political decision making in some way, but this has often invited controversy
(for instance in the case of the UK’s large-scale consultation process GMNation?, which was
criticised as inviting participation without actually providing any opportunity for effective
political impact; Mayer 2003). ‘Participation’ and ‘engagement’ have in practice tended to
mean that laypeople are given the opportunity to reflect on the implications of a particular
technological area and asked to develop recommendations on its development and
governance. These recommendations are then circulated and may, to a greater or lesser
extent, be taken into account in decision making on science (Hagendijk and Irwin 2006).
This section lists some of the key deliberative processes that have taken place on new and
emerging science and technology around the world, before discussing the results that have
emerged from them.
Biotechnologies and GM




National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, 1994, UK. The first UK
consensus conference, in which a lay panel spent three days (plus two preparatory
weekends) evaluating and making recommendations on the then-emergent field of
plant biotechnologies (Joss and Durant 1995).
GM Nation?, 2002-3, UK. A large scale public debate incorporating early citizen
framing of the process, an ‘open engagement’ phase (including discussion meetings,
a website, and opportunities for feedback), and a set of representative focus groups
(Horlick-Jones et al 2006; 2007).
Two Public Consultations on GM Field Trials, 2007, Finland. These consultations,
organised by the Board for Gene Technology, allowed individuals or groups to
submit written comments to the Board (Attensuu and Siipi 2009).
Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, ongoing, Australia. Advisory
committee which aims to support public participation in biotechnology (Schebeci et
al 2006).
Nanotechnology






Workshop and Citizens Panel, 2004, Australia. Mixed workshop discussions focusing
on the social values surrounding nanotechnology and how these might be integrated
into CSIRO research (Katz et al 2009).
Nano Jury UK, 2005, UK. A Citizens Jury of a panel of 16 lay participants, who met to
discuss nanotechnology over 10 evening sessions, hearing presentations from
expert witnesses and formulating recommendations to policy makers (Nano Jury UK
2005; Gavelin et al 2007).
The Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, 2005, US. A
one day public workshop involving 160 stakeholders, experts and laypeople (Kuzma
2007).
Convergence Seminars on Nanobiotechnology, 2006, across Europe. Four two and a
half hour workshops, in which laypeople discuss technological scenarios and make
recommendations (Godman and Hansson 2009).
Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment, 2006, Switzerland. A ‘publifocus’
discussion forum (a method developed by the Swiss Technology Assessment Office)
involving moderated group discussions around Switzerland. The organisers
compiled a report summarising lay perspectives (Rey 2006).
Citizens Conference on Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, 2006-7, France. A longterm engagement of a panel of 16, culminating in a public report and governance
recommendations (Ile-de-France 2007).






Citizens Panel on Nanotechnology, 2007, UK. Funded by the consumer organisation
Which?, a panel of 14 representative laypeople spent three days interrogating expert
witnesses and discussing consumer issues around nanotechnology (Opinion Leader
2008).
Consensus Conference on a Nanomedical Device for Genetic Analysis, 2007, Canada.
A consensus conference format involving 22 laypeople and the development of
policy recommendations (Mehta 2009).
NanoSoc citizens’ panel on Bio-on-Chip technology, 2007, Flanders. Part of NanoSoc,
a four year Flemist technology assessment project, this project involved lay
participants in a workshop in which different fictive ‘nano-imaginaries’ were acted
out to them (Evers and D’Silva 2009; Goorden et al 2008).
National Citizens Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement,
2008, US. A multi-site consensus conference involving both face to face and online
deliberation (Hamlett et al 2009).
Nanotechnology for Healthcare, 2008, UK. Sponsored by the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council, this multi-site set of deliberative workshops
involved representative groups of laypeople and was used to inform EPSRC funding
priorities (Bhattachary et al 2008).
Consumer Monitoring Survey, 2010, Korea. “Housewives with bachelor’s degrees in
science or engineering” were asked to explore nano-products they could find on the
market. They submitted a number of recommendations alongside the lists they
developed (Chung et al 2010).
Synthetic biology


Public Dialogue on Synthetic Biology, 2009, UK. A two-stage process sponsored by
the Royal Academy of Engineering and involving an exploratory discussion, over
two evenings, with 16 laypeople, and a follow-up telephone survey of 1,000
respondants (King and Webster 2009).
Synthetic Biology Dialogue, 2009-10, UK. Sponsored by a number of UK research
funders, this involved a set of stakeholder interviews alongside several days of
public workshops, with each workshop series held in four different locations
(Bhattachary et al 2010).
Geoengineering


Experiment Earth?, 2010, UK. A multi-site, multi-stage process funded by a number
of research funders and involving open access public events, deliberative
workshops, and an online questionnaire. Evidence from these strands was
synthesised by the organisers in a final report (Corner et al 2012; Ipsos MORI 2010).
SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) Deliberative
Workshops, 2011, UK. Three deliberative workshops, over a day and a half, in
different UK sites, and engaging a representative lay population (Parkhill and
Pidgeon 2011).
Interest in the use of public deliberation in science and technology policy seems to have
peaked with nanotechnology. While other initiatives are ongoing, thus far efforts around
other emerging technologies have not gained as much funding as was available for
nanotechnology. The above compilation of participatory and deliberative activities also
indicates some changes in the kinds of formats utilised. While early processes – such as the
UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology – tended to be based wholesale
on the Danish consensus conference model (Andersen and Jaeger 1999), shorter, more
flexible processes (such as workshops or online consultations) are increasingly being used.
While such methods undoubtedly remove some control of the deliberative process from lay
participants (with reports increasingly written by academic researchers or facilitators
rather than participants themselves, for instance), this is likely due to the complexities of
public deliberation on emerging technologies, in which laypeople are asked to reach
opinions on technologies which are personally unfamiliar and often speculative (see
discussions in Corner et al 2012; Davies et al 2010).
While lay recommendations from participatory processes can relate to the specificities of
the technologies under discussion or to a particular local context, it is striking how often
the same concerns around societal implications recur in consensus reports and policy
recommendations. These issues include:




A general, contingent enthusiasm for technological development – thus statements
such as “Most of our group are in favour of nanotechnologies for a large number of
reasons” (Ile-de-France 2007). Participants tend to particularly favour
developments for healthcare, environmental protection, and the majority world.
A desire for increased openess and transparency in the funding and development of
new technologies, and the continuation of open dialogue on and public engagement
with their governance. Thus, for instance, the NanoJury UK recommendations that
further public juries should be convened as nanotechnology develops and that
“scientists should improve their communication skills”.
Recommendations for further regulation, though this should not stifle development
or the possibility of economic growth, which is also valued highly (King and Webster
2009). Participants are often particularly concerned that any product lines
containing new technology should be labelled as such.
Principles that emerging technologies are seen as potentially affecting, and which
are valued highly by lay panels, include: privacy (avoiding a ‘Big Brother’ society),
equity (and thus that benefits to disadvantaged populations or groups should be
maximised), autonomy (freedom of choice), distrust of ‘technofixes’ for societal
problems, control of technologies (as far as that is possible), and the need for
trustworthy institutions (governments, companies, scientific research).
Technologies that impinge in some way on ‘natural systems’ (for example,
geoengineering) or the human (such as enhancement technologies) are seen as
especially ethically problematic (though not necessarily for that reason wrong), and
as therefore requiring more public discussion.
Most of the processes described above have focused on lay publics as the key ‘societal’
participants in science-society dialogue. Strikingly, and unlike the historical development
of technologies such as nuclear power, responses from civil society organisations to
emerging technologies such as nano have thus far been relatively muted (Bogner 2012;
Invernizzi 2011; Plows and Weinsborough 2011; Wehling 2012). While there has been
some ‘spontaneous’ activism around biotechnologies (Plows 2010; Mayer 2003) and, in the
case of nanotechnology, the involvement of workers organisations in highlighting concerns
regarding worker safety (Invernizzi 2011), the drive for public engagement has largely
been ‘top-down’, emanating from policy rather than publics themselves (Bogner 2012). A
number of NGOs have turned their attention to enabling technologies, with the ETC Group2
and Friends of the Earth Australia being particularly active in this area, and civil society
organisations have been represented in a number of stakeholder engagements on new and
emerging technologies (Miller and Scrinis 2012). Plows and Weinsborough (2011) argue,
however, that while a critical discourse of ‘the politics of technology’ is present in civil
society movements, this has not been mobilised to any great extent around emerging
technologies. Thus far, they suggest, such technologies are simply too far upstream for
widespread public action to ignite, speculating that it “may simply be that the complexity of
nanotechnology and the lack of clarity (for publics) about where the interests of publics lie,
cause publics (even protest communities) to wait for more information until their
smouldering concerns are either alleviated or proven” (ibid, 104).
5. Specialist assessments of societal implications of emerging technologies
Just as there is now an extensive literature on the ways in which publics assess the societal
implications of new technologies, there is also a large body of work in which specialists –
such as ethicists, philosophers, policy makers, or scientists themselves – reflect on these
questions. This section starts by discussing two summaries of contemporary thinking, both
of which largely focus on nanotechnology, before moving on to more specific accounts
relating to other technological areas.
Ronald Sandler’s assessment of the social and ethical issues associated with
nanotechnology (2009) was published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC. Although he is an
ethicist, and treats nanotechnological implications as first and foremost a question of
ethics, his typology is useful in that it also organises wider forms of implications, including,
for instance, economic, legal, justice, and environmental issues. He divides the issues that
nanotechnology presents (particularly when combined with other emerging technologies,
such as synthetic biology) into five categories:



2
‘Social context issues’ occur when technology feeds into already problematic social
or institutional systems. These include unequal access to beneficial new technology
or inadequate consumer safety measures.
‘Contested moral issues’ are issues more traditionally viewed as ethical. They relate
to those technological activities that many people feel to be morally wrong (such as
the genetic modification of humans).
‘Technoculture issues’ relate to systemic effects, such as a reliance on technological
fixes rather than exploring the underlying causes of particular problems.
See http://www.etcgroup.org


‘Form of life issues’ occur when technology transforms taken for granted
assumptions as to what human life involves. For instance, these relate to changes in
life course or to family structure, both of which would entail economic and social
changes.
‘Transformational issues’ are presented by those technologies – such as artificial
intelligence, molecular manufacturing, or human enhancement – that would
challenge (to a greater extent than form of life issues) deeply engrained
assumptions as to the human condition.
Ferrari (2010) takes a somewhat different approach to summarising the field, charting
different ethical approaches that have been used to consider the implications of
nanotechnology. She distinguishes between a consequentialist framework, which tends to
focus on the weighing up of the risks and benefits of a technological application;
deontological approaches (often used in opposition to consequentialist arguments), which
assume that particular activities are simply morally wrong; prudential frameworks, which
draw on a virtue ethics tradition and attempt to negotiate the uncertainty of emerging
technologies by emphasising flexible notions such as responsibility or sustainability; and,
finally, newer approaches which investigate the ‘metaphysical research programme’ implicit
within a technology’s development to assess the implications of its cultural, historical and
political context.
More specific assessments of particular technologies tend to draw on these ways of
thinking about societal implications whilst looking at more concrete developments.
Discussions of converging technologies, for instance, have often explored questions around
human enhancement and the ethical dangers this may pose (Banse et al 2007; Mali 2009; cf
Sandel 2007), though governance issues and the need for public processes of priority
setting have also been a theme (Mali 2009; Malsch 2008). In contrast, there has thus far
been relatively little discussion of the societal implications of enabling technologies – at
least in part because such platform technologies are part of complex knowledge and
product chains which mean their societal impacts may happen long after their initial
development, and in ways dependent on a particular application (de Jong et al 2011). As
with discussion of nanotechnology, there is general agreement that such technologies have
strong transformative potential and are likely to – and indeed should – engender
widespread public debate (National Enabling Technologies Strategy Expert Forum 2012;
Silberglitt et al 2006). In the case of synthetic biology, attention has focused not only on the
technology’s obvious potential to ‘create life’, and the ethical issues therein, but on wider
issues such as the potential for bioterrorism, the dangers of ecosystem disruption if
artificial organisms are widely released, equity and trade issues around the patenting of
life, and the justice question of who will benefit from these developments (Balmer and
Wood 2009; Lentzos 2009). As Yearley notes, there is a need for concrete discussion of
such issues as well as more abstract bioethical debate (Yearley 2009). The US Presidential
Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues took synthetic biology as the subject of its
first report, arguing for the application of five key principles: public beneficence,
responsible stewardship, intellectual freedom and responsibility, democratic deliberation,
and justice and fairness (Guttman 2010). Out of these principles a number of more specific
recommendations were developed, including to carry out a periodic assessment of the risks
posed by synthetic biology and to develop public education programmes around it.
A number of social science studies have explored the perspectives of technical experts on
the societal implications of emerging technologies. Besley et al (2008), for instance,
surveyed 177 nanotechnology researchers to report that they viewed potential impacts on
human health and the environment as particularly risky, and as requiring further
regulation (cf Gupta et al 2012). Other research has shown that nanoscientists are in fact
more concerned about the risks of some aspects of nanotechnology than laypeople
(Schefeule et al 2007).
6. Conclusion: Summary of assessments of societal implications and key contrasts and
differences
A number of repeated themes have thus emerged from both lay and specialist assessments
of the implications of emerging technologies. Significantly, all of these go beyond the
weighing up of likely benefits against potential risks to human health or the environment.
The implications of new technologies should therefore be understood as including not just
their direct consequences but also systemic issues such as their interaction with economies
(and thereby questions of economic justice and equality), their relation to shared value
systems (such as understandings of what it means to be human or of the value of nature),
and impacts on social institutions such as healthcare or the family. For publics, in
particular, the social context in which technologies are developed, produced and used is
paramount. The questions that they ask include: why is this being funded? Do we need this,
or are there other, less technological, solutions to this problem? Who will ultimately
benefit? Are our societies equipped to deal with the transformations this technology may
entail?
In this respect there is a high degree of homogeneity in the kinds of issues that have
emerged in discussions of the societal implications of new and emerging technologies, both
across scientific content areas and internationally. However, as the emphasis on the
importance of context would suggest, it is also the case that understandings of societal
implications are culturally grounded and tied to the way in which specific applications will
unfold in practice. The rest of this section charts some key differences that have emerged in
the assessment of particular technologies around the world before turning to look at
results from the STEP workshop.
One central, though inevitably simplistic, contrast that has emerged as key is that between
the (more) techno-optimistic US and a (more) sceptical Europe. Gaskell et al (2005), for
instance, argue that people in the US are more optimistic about nanotechnology (and a
number of other more familiar technologies), based on responses to survey questions
about whether these technologies will improve ‘our way of life’. Emerging technologies,
they suggest, are assimilated through cultural values, which in the US are more
straightforwardly pro-technology while in Europe are tinged with heightened awareness
and concern of, for instance, adverse environmental effects or regulatory failures (cf
Jasanoff 2005; Nye 2004). Similarly, a number of studies have suggested that civic
imaginations of political participation itself can be very different in different countries,
such that participatory and engagement processes will be understood, and carried out, and
indeed produce results, in varying ways (Dryzek and Tucker 2008; Horst and Irwin 2010).
Other studies have focused on the dynamics which appear to shape public perceptions –
such as trust in regulatory authorities or religiosity – and the ways in which these are
present in different national contexts (Scheufele et al 2008; Terwel et al 2011). As of yet,
little comparative data has emerged on the important contexts of emerging economies such
as China, India and South American countries (though see Invernizzi et al 2008;
Macnaghten and Guivant 2010). In the Australian context, most data indicates parallels to
Europe in regard to knowledge levels, attitudes and preferences regarding research
priorities, though the development of public engagement activities has been rather slower
(Kyle and Dodds 2009). Given the importance of national history, geography and culture in
shaping public imaginations of technology (Jasanoff 2005; Macnaghten and Guivant 2010),
there is a need for further research to identify the relevant underlying factors that shape
public responses to new technologies in Australia.
Pidgeon et al (2009) compare the UK and US in their study of public discussions of
nanotechnology, but find only subtle differences between public responses. Instead they
argue that application area is more important in shaping perceptions. Participants, they
report, felt that the impacts of the technology will ultimately depend on how it used.
Energy applications, for instance, were seen as “an unchallenged good”, while there was
more concern regarding health technologies with human enhancement potential.
Cacciatore et al (2009) report similar results, suggesting that risk perceptions are mediated
by the application field (for instance medicine or computing) that respondants primarily
associate nanotechnology with.
Comparisons with the STEP workshop
The STEP deliberative workshop differs from much of the research discussed in this review
in that it largely involved ‘experts’ – decision makers and opinion formers rather than
members of the lay public. The focus of the report, and of its recommendations, also
operate at something of a meta-level in these debates, examining the process of societal
assessment rather than the content of such assessments of particular enabling
technologies. Discussion emphasised the complexity of such assessment and of decision
making in innovation, with factors such as the global nature of the innovation process, the
unpredictability of technological development, and uncertainty regarding whose
responsibility assessment is all mentioned as key challenges.
Despite these contrasts, a number of themes in the report are familiar from this review.
This is particularly the case for the report’s recommendations, which emphasise “more
inclusive science policy and public engagement capability”, “public access to authoritative,
balanced information”, and the continued responsiveness of government to stakeholder
debate. These calls are mirrored both in the international literature around public
perceptions and engagement (Sections 3b; 4), which has, as discussed, emphasised the
need for openness, accountability and the continuation of engagement, and in more ‘expert’
assessments of the innovation process (Sections 2; 5). Both scholars of innovation and of
ethics and social research have, for instance, suggested the need for more open innovation,
in which stakeholders and publics are included throughout the development process
(Funcowitz and Ravetz 1993; Malsch 2008; Stilgoe 2012). These emphases on the process
of engagement also reflect another theme that has emerged from this review: that more
detailed considerations of the content of societal implications are largely technology and
application specific (Pidgeon et al 2009). While there are patterns in public preferences –
for ‘useful’ technologies which help the poor, for instance, or for those with medical
benefits – there are no one-size-fits-all societal implications of enabling technologies.
Societal assessment therefore needs to be flexible, continual, and focused on particular
developments rather than on general questions (as modelled in ‘real time technology
assessment’, for instance; Guston and Sarewitz 2002. Finally, the research presented in this
review has shown that assessment of societial implications also needs to be carried out in
good faith. While there are considerable challenges in enabling policy structures, industry
practices, and scientific institutions to be responsive to public perspectives (Davies et al
2009; Hagendijk and Irwin 2006), historically, attempting to negotiate these challenges
half-heartedly has tended to backfire (Horlick-Jones et al 2007).
Bibliography
Ahteensuu, Marko, and Elena Siipi. 2009. “A Critical Assessment of Public Consultations on
GMOs in the European Union.” Environmental Values 18 (2) (May): 129–152.
doi:10.3197/096327109X438035.
Andersen, Ida Elisabeth, and Birgit Jaeger. 1999. “Danish Participatory Models. Scenario
Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-making.”
Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331–340.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Marion Young, and Nancy Fraser. 2007.
Justice, governance, cosmopolitanism, and the politics of difference: reconfigurations in a
transnational world (distinguished W.E.B. Du Bois lectures 2004/2005). Berlin: HumboldtUniv.
Bainbridge, William Sims. 2002. “Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology.” Journal of
Nanoparticle Research 4 (6): 561–570.
Baldoz, Rick, Charles Koeber, and Philip Kraft. 2001. The Critical Study of Work: Labor,
Technology, and Global Production. Temple University Press.
Balmer, Andrew, and Paul Wood. 2008. “Synthetic Biology: The Social and Ethical
Challenges”. BBSRC Report. University of Nottingham.
Banse, Gerhard, Arnim Grunwald, Imre Hronszky, and Gordon Nelson, ed. 2007. Assessing
Societal Implications of Converging Technological Development. edition sigma.
Barnett, J., H. Cooper, and V. Senior. 2007. “Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes
Toward Modern Genetic Science.” Risk Analysis 27 (4) (August): 921–933.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00932.x.
Besley, J. 2010. “Current Research on Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology.” Emerging
Health Threats Journal 3.
Besley, John C., Victoria L. Kramer, and Susanna H. Priest. 2008. “Expert Opinion on
Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Regulation.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10 (4)
(April): 549–558. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6.
Betz, Frederick. 2011. Managing Technological Innovation: Competitive Advantage from
Change. John Wiley & Sons.
Bhattachary, Darren, Juliet Pascall Calitz, and Andrew Hunter. 2010. “Synthetic Biology
Dialogue”. London: TNS-BMRB.
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biologydialogue.aspx.
Bhattachary, Darren, Richard Stockley, and Andrew Hunter. 2008. “Nanotechnology for
Healthcare”. BMRB.
Blaine, K., S. Kamaldeen, and D. Powell. 2002. “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology.”
Journal of Food Science 67 (9) (December): 3200–3208. doi:10.1111/j.13652621.2002.tb09566.x.
BMRB Social Research. 2004. “Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public. Quantitative
and Qualitative Research Carried Out as Part of the Nanotechnology Study”. London: The
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group.
Boenink, Marianne. 2012. “Debating the Desirability of New Biomedical Technologies:
Lessons from the Introduction of Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands.” Health Care
Analysis 20 (1) (March): 84–102. doi:10.1007/s10728-011-0173-0.
Bogner, Alexander. 2012. “The Paradox of Participation Experiments.” Science, Technology
& Human Values 37 (5) (September 1): 506–527. doi:10.1177/0162243911430398.
Bottini, Massimo, Nicola Rosato, Fulvia Gloria, Sara Adanti, Nunziella Corradino, Antonio
Bergamaschi, and Andrea Magrini. 2011. “Public Optimism Towards Nanomedicine.”
International Journal of Nanomedicine 6: 3473–+. doi:10.2147/IJN.S26340.
Bowman, Diana M., and Graeme A. Hodge. 2007. “Nanotechnology and Public Interest
Dialogue: Some International Observations.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 27
(2): 118–132. doi:10.1177/0270467606298216.
Brossard, Dominique, Dietram A. Scheufele, Eunkyung Kim, and Bruce V. Lewenstein. 2009.
“Religiosity as a Perceptual Filter: Examining Processes of Opinion Formation About
Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (5): 546–558.
Burgi, B. R., and T. Pradeep. 2006. “Societal Implications of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology in Developing Countries.” Current Science 90 (5) (March 10): 645–658.
Burri, R.V., and S. Bellucci. 2008. “Public Perception of Nanotechnology.” Journal of
Nanoparticle Research 10 (3): 387–391.
Burri, Regula Valerie. 2007. “Deliberating Risks Under Uncertainty: Experience, Trust, and
Attitudes in a Swiss Nanotechnology Stakeholder Discussion Group.” NanoEthics 1 (2):
143–154.
Cacciatore, M. A., D. A. Scheufele, and E. A. Corley. 2009. “From Enabling Technology to
Applications: The Evolution of Risk Perceptions About Nanotechnology.” Public
Understanding of Science (October). doi:10.1177/0963662509347815.
Carter, Michael. 1981. “Technological Change In Australia: A Review of the Myers Report.”
Australian Economic Review 14 (2): 55–64.
Ceccoli, Stephen, and William Hixon. 2012. “Explaining Attitudes Toward Genetically
Modified Foods in the European Union.” International Political Science Review 33 (3)
(June): 301–319. doi:10.1177/0192512111418788.
Chung, Yoonsuhn, Jungil Lee, and Ilki Han. 2010. “Public Engagement in Nanotechnology
Policy.” In 2010 10th IEEE Conference on Nanotechnology (IEEE-NANO), 1223 –1226.
doi:10.1109/NANO.2010.5698043.
Cobb, M. D. 2011. “Creating Informed Public Opinion: Citizen Deliberation About
Nanotechnologies for Human Enhancements.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13 (4):
1533–1548.
Cobb, Michael D., and Jane Macoubrie. 2004. “Public Perceptions About Nanotechnology:
Risks, Benefits and Trust.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 (4): 395–405.
Cohen, Emma R. M., Hassan Masum, Kathryn Berndtson, Vicki Saunders, Tom Hadfield,
Dilzayn Panjwani, Deepa L. Persad, et al. 2008. “Public Engagement on Global Health
Challenges.” Bmc Public Health 8 (May 20). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-168.
Conti, Joseph, Terre Satterfield, and Barbara Herr Harthorn. 2011. “Vulnerability and Social
Justice as Factors in Emergent US Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions.” Risk Analysis 31 (11)
(November): 1734–1748. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x.
Corner, Adam, Nick Pidgeon, and Karen Parkhill. 2012. “Perceptions of Geoengineering:
Public Attitudes, Stakeholder Perspectives, and the Challenge of ‘Upstream’ Engagement.”
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 3 (5) (October): 451–466.
doi:10.1002/wcc.176.
Davies, Sarah R., Matthew B. Kearnes, and Phil Macnaghten. 2010. “Nanotechnology and
Public Engagement: a New Kind of (social) Science?” In Nano Meets Macro, edited by
Kamilla Kjolberg and Fern Wickson, 473–499. Singapore: Pan Stanford.
Davies, Sarah R., and Phil Macnaghten. 2010. “Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay
Ethics of Nanotechnology.” NanoEthics 4 (2) (August): 141–151. doi:10.1007/s11569-0100096-5.
Dijkstra, Anne M., and Jan M. Gutteling. 2012. “Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science
Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and
Genomics.” Science Communication 34 (3) (June): 363–391.
doi:10.1177/1075547011417894.
Dijkstra, Anne M., Jan M. Gutteling, Jac A. A. Swart, Nicolien F. Wieringa, Henny J. van der
Windt, and Erwin R. Seydel. 2012. “Public Participation in Genomics Research in the
Netherlands: Validating a Measurement Scale.” Public Understanding of Science 21 (4)
(May): 465–477. doi:10.1177/0963662510381036.
Doherty, Brian, Alexandra Plows, and Derek Wall. 2007. “Environmental Direct Action in
Manchester, Oxford and North Wales: A Protest Event Analysis.” Environmental Politics 16
(5): 805–825.
Druckman, James N., and Toby Bolsen. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions
About Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication 61 (4) (August): 659–688.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x.
Dryzek, John S., and Aviezer Tucker. 2008. “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect:
Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States.” Public Administration
Review 68 (5) (September 1): 864–876. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x.
Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. 2010. “The Narratology of Lay Ethics.” NanoEthics 4 (2) (August): 153–
170. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0097-4.
Evers, Johan, and Joel D’Silva. 2009. “Knowledge Transfer from Citizens’ Panels to
Regulatory Bodies in the Domain of Nano-enabled Medical Applications.” Innovation-the
European Journal of Social Science Research 22 (1): 125–142.
doi:10.1080/13511610902770685.
Fagerberg, Jan, and Bart Verspagen. 2009. “Innovation studies—The Emerging Structure of
a New Scientific Field.” Research Policy 38 (2) (March): 218–233.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006.
Ferrari, Arianna. 2008. “Is It All About Human Nature? Ethical Challenges of
Converging Technologies Beyond a Polarized Debate.” Innovation-the European Journal of
Social Science Research 21 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1080/13511610802002171.
———. 2010. “Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the
Need for New Kinds of Analysis.” NanoEthics 4 (1) (April 1): 27–52. doi:10.1007/s11569009-0081-z.
Fleischer, Torsten, Michael Decker, and Ulrich Fiedeler. 2005. “Assessing Emerging
technologies—Methodological Challenges and the Case of Nanotechnologies.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 72 (9) (November): 1112–1121.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.005.
Fontes, Margarida. 2005. “The Process of Transformation of Scientific and Technological
Knowledge into Economic Value Conducted by Biotechnology Spin-offs.” Technovation 25
(4) (April): 339–347. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.08.004.
Freeman, Christopher, and Luc Soete. 1994. Work for All or Mass Unemployment?:
Computerised Technical Change into the Twenty-first Century. Pinter Publishers.
Freeman, R, and K Shukla. 2008. “Science and Engineering Work- Force Project Digest: Jobs
in Nanotech—creating a Measure of Job Growth”. National Bureau of Economic Research.
http://www.nber.org/*sewp/SEWPDigestJun2008.pdf.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-normal Age.” Futures
25 (7) (September): 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. “Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural
Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States.” Public
Understanding of Science 14 (1): 81–90.
Gavelin, Karin, Richard Wilson, and Rob Doubleday. 2007. “Democratic Technologies? The
Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG)”. London: Involve.
Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. “The Governance of University Knowledge
Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Minerva 47 (1) (March 1): 93–114.
doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and
Martin Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and
Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
Giorgi, Liana. 2009. “Converging Technologies - What Future? The Views of the Science
and Policy Communities.” Innovation-the European Journal of Social Science Research 22
(4): 427–442. doi:10.1080/13511610903462399.
Godman, Marion, and Sven Ove Hansson. 2009. “European Public Advice on
Nanobiotechnology—Four Convergence Seminars.” NanoEthics 3 (1) (April 1): 43–59.
doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0054-2.
Goorden, Lieve, Michiel Van Oudheusden, Johan Evers, and Marian Deblonde. 2008. “Lose
One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s
Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc).” NanoEthics 2 (3):
213–230.
Goven, Joanna, E. R. Langer, Virginia Baker, James Ataria, and Alan Leckie. 2012.
“Community Engagement in the Management of Biosolids: Lessons from Four New Zealand
Studies.” Journal of Environmental Management 103 (July 30): 154–164.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.007.
Gupta, Nidhi, Arnout R. H. Fischer, Ivo A. van der Lans, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2012. “Factors
Influencing Societal Response of Nanotechnology: An Expert Stakeholder Analysis.” Journal
of Nanoparticle Research 14 (5) (May). doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x.
Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.”
Technology in Society 24 (1-2): 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
Gutmann, Amy. 2011. “The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Guiding Principles for Emerging
Technologies.” Hastings Center Report 41 (4): 17–22. doi:10.1002/j.1552146X.2011.tb00118.x.
Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with
Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe.” Minerva 44 (2) (June): 167–184.
doi:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x.
Hamlett, Patrick W., Michael D. Cobb, and David H. Guston. 2009. “National Citizens’
Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement”. Arizona State University:
The Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University.
Hellström, Tomas. 2003. “Systemic Innovation and Risk: Technology Assessment and the
Challenge of Responsible Innovation.” Technology in Society 25 (3) (August): 369–384.
doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00041-1.
Hodge, G.A., and D.M. Bowman. 2007. “Engaging in Small Talk: Nanotechnology Policy and
Dialogue Processes in the UK and Australia.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 66
(2): 223–237.
Horlick-Jones, T., John Walls, Gene Rowe, Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga, and Tim
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.
Horlick-Jones, Tom, John Walls, Gene Rowe, Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga, Graham
Murdock, and Tim O’Riordan. 2007. The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement.
New York: Routledge.
Van Horn, Carl, and Aaron Fichtner. 2008. “The Workforce Needs of Companies Engaged in
Nanotechnology Research in Arizona”. CNS-ASU Report #R08-0005. Center for
Nanotechnology in Society.
Horst, Maja, and Alan Irwin. 2010. “Nations at Ease with Radical Knowledge: On Consensus,
Consensusing and False Consensusness.” Social Studies of Science 40 (1) (February 1): 105–
126.
Ile-de-France. 2007. “Citizens Recommendations on Nanotechnology.” Paris: Espace
Projets. http://espaceprojets.iledefrance.fr/jahia/Jahia/NanoCitoyens/site/projets.
Invernizzi, Noela. 2011. “Nanotechnology Between the Lab and the Shop Floor: What Are
the Effects on Labor?” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13 (6) (March 18): 2249–2268.
doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0333-z.
Invernizzi, Noela, Guillermo Foladori, and Donald Maclurcan. 2008. “Nanotechnology’s
Controversial Role for the South.” Science Technology & Society 13 (1) (May 1): 123–148.
Ipsos MORI. 2010. “Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering.”
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs On Nature: Science And Democracy In Europe And The United
States. Princeton University Press.
Joly, Pierre Benoit, and Alain Kaufmann. 2008. “Lost in Translation? The Need for Upstream
Engagement with Nanotechnology on Trial.” Science as Culture 17 (3): 225–247.
Jones, Barry O. 1990. Sleepers, Wake!: Technology and the Future of Work. Oxford University
Press.
De Jong, Stefan, Kate Barker, Deborah Cox, Diana Person, and Peter van den Besselaar.
2011. “Societal Impact of Enabling Research Fields: ICT Research: A Dutch and a UK Case.”
In Rome.
Joss, Simon, and John Durant. 1995. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus
Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
Kahan, Dan M., Donald Braman, Paul Slovic, John Gastil, and Geoffrey Cohen. 2009. “Cultural
Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology.” Nat Nano 4 (2) (February): 87–90.
doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341.
Katz, Evie, Fiona Solomon, Wendy Mee, and Roy Lovel. 2009. “Evolving Scientific Research
Governance in Australia: a Case Study of Engaging Interested Publics in Nanotechnology
Research.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (5): 531–545.
King, Suzanne., and Tara Webster. 2009. “Synthetic Biology: Public Dialogue on Synthetic
Biology”. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Kline, SJ, and Nathan Rosenberg. 1986. “An Overview of Innovation.” In The Positive Sum
Strategy, edited by R Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, 275–305. Academy of Engineering
Press.
Kuzma, Jennifer. 2007. “Moving Forward Responsibly: Oversight for the Nanotechnologybiology Interface.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9 (1) (January): 165–182.
doi:10.1007/s11051-006-9151-0.
Kuzma, Jennifer, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Jee-Ae Kim, Adam
Kokotovich, and Susan M. Wolf. 2008. “An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment
for Emerging Technologies.” Risk Analysis 28 (5): 1197–1220. doi:10.1111/j.15396924.2008.01086.x.
Kyle, Renee, and Susan Dodds. 2008. “Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in
Debates About Nanotechnologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1) (September 30):
81–96. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y.
Landau, Ralph, and Nathan Rosenberg. 1986. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing
Technology for Economic Growth. National Academies Press.
Lentzos, Filippa. 2009. “Synthetic Biology in the Social Context: The UK Debate to Date.”
Biosocieties 4 (2-3) (September): 303–315. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990172.
Levitt, M. 2003. “Public Consultation in Bioethics. What’s the Point of Asking the
Public When They Have Neither Scientific nor Ethical Expertise?” Health Care Analysis 11
(1) (March): 15–25. doi:10.1023/A:1025381828650.
Lloyds. 2007. “Nanotechnology, Recent Developments, Risks and Opportunities”. London:
Lloyds Emerging Risks Team Report.
López, José Julián. 2008. “Nanotechnology: Legitimacy, Narrative and Emergent
Technologies.” Sociology Compass 2 (4): 1266–1286. doi:10.1111/j.17519020.2008.00121.x.
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, and Susana Borrás. 2005. “Science, Technology and Innovation
Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 599–631.
Lynch, Z. 2004. “Neurotechnology and Society (2010-2060).” In Coevolution of Human
Potential and Converging Technologies, edited by M. C. Roco and C. D. Montemagno,
1013:229–233. http://lifeboat.com/ex/neurotechnology.and.society.
Lyons, K., and J. Whelan. 2010. “Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and
Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia.” NanoEthics 4 (1): 53–66.
Macnaghten, Phil. 2010. “Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative
Structures, Public Responses, and Emerging Nanotechnologies.” Environment and Planning
A 42 (1): 23 – 37. doi:10.1068/a41349.
Macnaghten, Phil, and Julia 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) (March 1): 207–220. doi:10.1177/0963662510379084.
Macnaghten, Phil, and Richard Owen. 2011. “Good Governance for Climate-engineering.”
Nature 479: 293.
Macnaghten, Phil, and John Urry. 1998. Contested Natures. London: Sage.
Mali, Franc. 2009. “Bringing Converging Technologies Closer to Civil Society: The Role of
the Precautionary Principle.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research
22 (1): 53–75. doi:10.1080/13511610902770586.
Malsch, Ineke. 2008. “Which Research in Converging Technologies Should Taxpayers
Fund? Exploring Societal Aspects.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (1):
137–148. doi:10.1080/09537320701726833.
Mayer, Sue. 2003. “GM NATION? Engaging People in Real Debate? A GeneWatch UK Report
on the Conduct of the UK’s Public Debate on GM Crops and Food”. Buxton: Genewatch UK.
Mehta, Michael D. 2009. “Engaging the Public: Results of a Canadian Consensus Conference
on a Nanomedical Device for Genetic Analysis.” Journal of Nano Education 1 (March): 109–
115. doi:doi:10.1166/jne.2009.014.
Michael, Gilding, and Christine Critchley. 2003. “Technology And Trust: Public Perceptions
Of Technological Change In Australia.” Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and
Society 1 (1): 52–69.
Miller, Evonne, Lorraine M. Bell, and Laurie Buys. 2007. “Public Understanding of Carbon
Sequestration in Australia: Socio-demographic Predictors of Knowledge, Engagement and
Trust.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 5 (1): 15–33.
Miller, Georgia, and Gyorgy Scrinis. 2012. “The Role of NGOs in Governing
Nanotechnologies: Challenging the ‘Benefits Versus Risks’ Framing of Nanotech
Innovation.” In International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, edited by Graeme
A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman, and Andrew D. Maynard, 409–455. Edward Elgar Pub.
Mir, L. 2007. “Perception of the Dangers of Nanotechnologies by Experts and the
Uninformed.” Environnement Risques & Sante 6 (5): 331–332.
Molster, C., T. Charles, A. Samanek, and P. O’Leary. 2009. “Australian Study on Public
Knowledge of Human Genetics and Health.” Public Health Genomics 12 (2): 84–91.
doi:10.1159/000164684.
NanoJury UK. 2005. “NanoJury UK: Provisional Recommendations”. Newcastle upon Tyne:
PEALS. http://www.nanojury.org.uk/.
National Enabling Technologies Strategy Expert Forum. 2012. “Enabling Technology
Futures: a Survey of the Australian Technology Landscape”. Prepared by the Australian
Institute for Commercialisation For the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education.
Noble, David F. 1995. Progress Without People: New Technology, Unemployment, and the
Message of Resistance. Between The Lines.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge
and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.
Nye, David E. 2004. America As Second Creation: Technology and Narratives of New
Beginnings. MIT Press.
O’Connor, M., and S. van den Hove. 2001. “Prospects for Public Participation on Nuclear
Risks and Policy Options: Innovations in Governance Practices for Sustainable
Development in the European Union.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 86 (1-3) (September
14): 77–99. doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00256-4.
Opinion Leader. 2008. “Report on the Citizens Panel Examining Nanotechnologies.”
Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. 2010. “Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the
U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.” Risk Analysis 30 (11): 1699–
1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.
Parkhill, Karen, and Nick Pidgeon. 2011. “Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research:
Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops”. Technical Report
(Understanding Risk Group Working Paper, 11-01). Cardiff: School of Psychology, Cardiff
University.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Stratospherics/spice%20public%20vi
ews.pdf.
Peter D.Hart Research Associates. 2009. “Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, & Public
Opinion: A Report Of Findings Based On A National Survey Among Adults”. Washington DC:
Hart Research Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/events/archive/8284/.
Petersen, A, and D Bowman. 2012. “Engaging Whom and for What Ends? Australian
Stakeholders’ Constructions of Public Engagement in Relation to Nanotechnologies.” Ethics
in Science and Environmental Politics 12 (2) (June 8): 67–79. doi:10.3354/esep00124.
Pidgeon, Nick, Adam Corner, Karen Parkhill, Alexa Spence, Catherine Butler, and Wouter
Poortinga. 2012. “Exploring Early Public Responses to Geoengineering.” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 370
(1974) (September 13): 4176–4196. doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0099.
Pidgeon, Nick, Barbara Herr Harthorn, Karl Bryant, and Tee Rogers-Hayden. 2009.
“Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the
United States and United Kingdom.” Nature Nanotechnology 4 (2) (February): 95–98.
doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.362.
Pidgeon, Nick, and Tee Rogers-Hayden. 2007. “Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with
the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?” Health Risk & Society 9 (2):
191–210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906.
Plows, Alexandra. 2010. “What Is Public Engagement with Human Genetics and What Is It
for? Differentiating Between Policy Practice and ‘social Movement’”. The Menai Papers
Working Papers Series 2010-01. Bangor: School of Social Sciences, Bangor University.
Plows, Alexandra, and M Reinsborough. 2011. “Encountering ‘the Politics of Technology’:
Public Engagement from the Bottom Up.” In Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of
Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, edited by TB Zülsdorf, Christopher Coenen, Ulrich
Fiedeler, Arianna Ferrari, Colin Milburn, and Matthias Wienroth, 91–108. IOS Press.
Porter, Alan L., Scott W. Cunningham, Jerry Banks, A. Thomas Roper, Thomas W. Mason,
and Frederick A. Rossini. 2011. Forecasting and Management of Technology. John Wiley &
Sons.
Priest, S. 2006. “The North American Opinion Climate for Nanotechnology and Its Products:
Opportunities and Challenges.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8 (5): 563–568.
Priest, Susanna, Ted Greenhalgh, and Victoria Kramer. 2010. “Risk Perceptions Starting to
Shift? US Citizens Are Forming Opinions About Nanotechnology.” Journal of Nanoparticle
Research 12 (1) (January): 11–20. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9789-5.
Priest, Susanna, Thomas Lane, Ted Greenhalgh, Lindsey Jo Hand, and Victoria Kramer.
2011. “Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three-Year Panel Study of
South Carolina Citizens.” Risk Analysis 31 (11) (November): 1718–1733.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01705.x.
Randles, Sally. 2008. “From Nano-Ethicswash to Real-Time Regulation.” Journal of
Industrial Ecology 12 (3): 270–274.
DG Research. 2011. “DG Research Workshop on Responsible Research & Innovation in
Europe”. Brussels.
Retzbach, Andrea, Joachim Marschall, Marion Rahnke, Lukas Otto, and Michaela Maier.
2011. “Public Understanding of Science and the Perception of Nanotechnology: The Roles
of Interest in Science, Methodological Knowledge, Epistemological Beliefs, and Beliefs
About Science.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13 (12) (December): 6231–6244.
doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x.
Rey, Lucienne. 2006. “Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland: Report on
‘Publifocus’ Discussion Forum ‘Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment’”. Bern:
Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council.
http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_pfna.html.
Roco, Mihail C., Barbara Harthorn, David Guston, and Philip Shapira. 2011. “Innovative and
Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development.” Journal of
Nanoparticle Research 13 (9) (September): 3557–3590. doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0454-4.
Roco, Mihail C., Chad A. Mirkin, and Mark C. Hersam. 2011. “Nanotechnology Research
Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: Summary of International Study.” Journal of
Nanoparticle Research 13 (3) (March): 897–919. doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0275-5.
Rogers-Hayden, Tee, and Nick Pidgeon. 2008. “Developments in Nanotechnology Public
Engagement in the UK: ‘Upstream’ Towards Sustainability?” Journal of Cleaner Production
16 (8-9): 1010–1013. doi:10.1016/j.jelepro.2007.04.013.
Rollin, Fanny, Jean Kennedy, and Josephine Wills. 2011. “Consumers and New Food
Technologies.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 22 (2-3) (March): 99–111.
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2010.09.001.
Ronteltap, Amber, Arnout R. H. Fischer, and Hilde Tobi. 2011. “Societal Response to
Nanotechnology: Converging Technologies-converging Societal Response Research?”
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13 (10) (October): 4399–4410. doi:10.1007/s11051-0110473-1.
Russell, A. Wendy, Frank M. Vanclay, Janet G. Salisbury, and Heather J. Aslin. 2010.
“Technology Assessment in Australia: The Case for a Formal Agency to Improve Advice to
Policy Makers.” Policy Sciences 44 (2) (July 30): 157–177. doi:10.1007/s11077-010-9120-4.
Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.
London: Harvard University Press.
Sandler, Ronald. 2009. “Nanotechnology: The Social and Ethical Issues”. Washington:
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen16/.
Sardar, Ziauddin. 2010. “Welcome to Postnormal Times.” Futures 42 (5) (June): 435–444.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028.
Satterfield, Terre, Milind Kandlikar, E.H. BeaudrieChristian, Joseph Conti, and Barbara Herr
Harthorn. 2009. “Anticipating the Perceived Risk of Nanotechnologies.” Nat Nano 4 (11)
(November): 752–758. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.265.
Scheufele, Dietram A., Elizabeth A. Corley, Sharon Dunwoody, Tsung Jen Shih, Elliott
Hillback, and David H. Guston. 2007. “Scientists Worry About Some Risks More Than the
Public.” Nature Nanotechnology 2 (12): 732–734.
Scheufele, Dietram A., Elizabeth A. Corley, Tsung Jen Shih, Kajsa E. Dalrymple, and Shirley S.
Ho. 2009. “Religious Beliefs and Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology in Europe and
the United States.” Nat Nano 4 (2): 91–94. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.361.
Schibeci, Renato, Jeff Harwood, and Heather Dietrich. 2006. “Community Involvement in
Biotechnology Policy?: The Australian Experience.” Science Communication 27 (3): 429–
445.
Sclove, Richard. 2010. “Reinventing Technology Assessment.” Issues in Science and
Technology (Fall 2010): 34–38.
Seear, Kate, Alan Petersen, and Diana Bowman. 2009. “The Social and Economic Impacts of
Nanotechnologies: A Literature Review.”
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologiesS
trategy/Documents/SocialandEconomicImpacts_LiteratureReview.pdf.
“SIAMPI.” 2013. Accessed February 14.
https://research.mbs.ac.uk/innovation/Research/Currentprojects/SIAMPI.aspx.
Siegrist, M., C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, S. Frey, and A. Wiek. 2007. “Laypeople’s and Experts’
Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards.” Risk Analysis 27 (1): 59–69.
Siegrist, Michael. 2010. “Predicting the Future: Review of Public Perception Studies of
Nanotechnology.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 16 (4):
837–846. doi:10.1080/10807039.2010.501255.
Silberglitt, Richard, Philip S Anton, David R Howell, and Anny Wong. 2006. “The Global
Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses: Bio/Nano/Materials/Information Trends,
Drivers, Barriers, and Social Implications”. RAND: National Security Research Division.
Stilgoe, Jack. 2012. “Taking Care of the Future – the Imperative of Responsible Innovation.”
People and Science June 2012: 22.
Sutcliffe, Hilary, and Simon Hodgson. 2006. “Briefing paper:An Uncertain Business: The
Technical, Social and Commercial Challenges Presented by Nanotechnology.”
Sylvester, Douglas J., Kenneth W. Abbott, and Gary E. Marchant. 2009. “Not Again! Public
Perception, Regulation, and Nanotechnology.” Regulation & Governance 3 (2) (June): 165–
185. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x.
Terwel, Bart W., Fieke Harinck, Naomi Ellemers, and Dancker D.L. Daamen. 2011. “Going
Beyond the Properties of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: How Trust in
Stakeholders Affects Public Acceptance of CCS.” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 5 (2) (March): 181–188. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.10.001.
Toni Ahlqvist, Asta Bäck. 2010. “Road-mapping the Societal Transformation Potential of
Social Media.” Foresight 12 (5): 3–26. doi:10.1108/14636681011075687.
Tödtling, Franz, and Michaela Trippl. 2005. “One Size Fits All?: Towards a Differentiated
Regional Innovation Policy Approach.” Research Policy 34 (8) (October): 1203–1219.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
“UK National Consensus Conference on Biotechnology: Final Report of the Lay Panel.” 1994.
London. http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/gmfood/conference.html.
Waldron, Anna M., Douglas Spencer, and Carl A. Batt. 2006. “The Current State of Public
Understanding of Nanotechnology.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8 (5): 569–575.
Wehling, Peter. 2012. “From Invited to Uninvited Participation (and Back?): Rethinking
Civil Society Engagement in Technology Assessment and Development.” Poiesis & Praxis 9
(1-2) (November 16): 43–60. doi:10.1007/s10202-012-0125-2.
Wei, Max, Shana Patadia, and Daniel M. Kammen. 2010. “Putting Renewables and Energy
Efficiency to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate in the US?”
Energy Policy 38 (2) (February): 919–931. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044.
Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. “Science and Trans-science.” Minerva 10 (2): 209–222.
Whitmarsh, Lorraine, Gill Seyfang, and Saffron O’Neill. 2011. “Public Engagement with
Carbon and Climate Change: To What Extent Is the Public ‘Carbon Capable’?” Global
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 21 (1) (February): 56–65.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.011.
Woirol, Gregory Ray. 1996. The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment
Debates. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Yearley, S. 2009. “The Ethical Landscape: Identifying the Right Way to Think About the
Ethical and Societal Aspects of Synthetic Biology Research and Products.” Journal of The
Royal Society Interface 6 (Suppl 4): S559–S564.
Yuthas, K., and J. F. Dillard. 1999. “Ethical Development of Advanced Technology: A
Postmodern Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 19 (1) (March): 35–49.
doi:10.1023/A:1006145805087.
Zwart, Nijmegen Hub. 2007. “Genomics and Self-knowledge: Implications for Societal
Research and Debate.” New Genetics and Society 26 (2): 181–202.
doi:10.1080/14636770701466881.
Appendix A: Search Terms (Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar)
(‘enabling tech*’ OR ‘converging tech*’ OR ‘emerging tech*’ OR ‘platform tech*’ OR ‘nano*’ OR
‘synthetic bio*’ OR ‘biotech*’ OR ‘ICT’)
AND (‘public perception’ OR
‘public opinion’ OR ‘survey’ OR
‘narrative’)
AND (‘public engagement’ OR
‘deliberation’ OR ‘stakeholder
engagement’ OR ‘public
participation’ OR ‘dialogue’ OR
‘consensus conference’)
AND (‘societal implication’ OR
‘ethic*’)