IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i5p313-319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science

Author

Listed:
  • John Durant

Abstract

It seems that the general public is somewhat disillusioned with science and technology and is demanding greater participation in important decisions as to their application in everyday life. Ideals of equality between scientists and non-scientists and of informed public debate as the preconditions for forging socially sustainable public policies need to be translated into new processes of deliberative democracy. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:313-319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782329
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    2. Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Ouma-Mugabe, John, 2024. "A generic technology assessment framework for sustainable energy transitions in African contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Attar, Arif & Genus, Audley, 2014. "Framing public engagement: A critical discourse analysis of GM Nation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 241-250.
    4. Anthony Dudo & John C Besley, 2016. "Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    6. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    7. Upasna Sharma & Anna Scolobig & Anthony Patt, 2012. "The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(2), pages 1357-1371, November.
    8. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    9. Qihui Xie & Yanan Xue & Zhuojun Zhao, 2022. "Understanding the Scientific Topics in the Chinese Government’s Communication about COVID-19: An LDA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, August.
    10. Maria Michali & George Eleftherakis, 2022. "Public Engagement Practices in EC-Funded RRI Projects: Fostering Socio-Scientific Collaborations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    12. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.
    13. Feng-Shang Wu & Hong-Ji Huang, 2024. "Why Do Some Countries Innovate Better than Others? A New Perspective of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Regimes and National Absorptive Capacity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, March.
    14. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    15. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    16. Umbrello, Steven & Bernstein, Michael J. & Vermaas, Pieter E. & Resseguier, Anaïs & Gonzalez, Gustavo & Porcari, Andrea & Grinbaum, Alexei & Adomaitis, Laurynas, 2023. "From speculation to reality: Enhancing anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies (ATE) in practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:5:p:313-319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.