14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
science and technology. Washington DC; 2010.<br />
291. Stirling A. European Commission FP7 Expert<br />
Advisory Group on Science in Society – Final<br />
report. Brussels; 2009:1–15.<br />
292. Fiorino DJ. Citizen Participation and<br />
Environmental Risk: a survey of institutional<br />
mechanisms. 1990.<br />
293. Feyerabend P. Against Method. London: Verso;<br />
1975.<br />
294. Mohr A, Raman S, Gibbs B. Which publics?<br />
When? Exploring the policy potential of involving<br />
different publics in dialogue around scienc and<br />
technology. London; 20<strong>14</strong>.<br />
295. Paper SW. Empowering Designs: towards<br />
more progressive appraisal of sustainability.<br />
296. Porter ME, Linde C Van Der. Green and<br />
Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harv Bus<br />
Rev. 1995;September-.<br />
297. Tornatzky LG, Fergus EO, Avellar JW,<br />
Fairweather GW, Fleischer M. Innovation<br />
and Social Process: national experiment in<br />
implementing social technology. (Tonratzky<br />
LG, Fergus EO, Avellar JW, Fairweather GW,<br />
Fleischer M, eds.). New York: Pergamon; 1980.<br />
298. Wynne B. Public Participation in Science and<br />
Technology: Performing and Obscuring a<br />
Political–Conceptual Category Mistake. East<br />
Asian Sci Technol Soc an Int J. 2007;1(1):99–110.<br />
doi:10.1007/s12280-007-9004-7.<br />
299. Bussu S, Davis H, Pollard A. The best of<br />
Sciencewise reflections on public dialogue.<br />
London; 20<strong>14</strong>.<br />
300. Stirling A. From Science and Society to Science<br />
in Society: towards a framework for co-operative<br />
research. Brussels; 2006.<br />
301. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.<br />
London: SAGE; 1992.<br />
302. Pellizzoni L. Trust, Responsibility and<br />
Environmental Policy. Eur Soc. 2005;7(4):567–<br />
594. doi:10.1080/<strong>14</strong>616690500194118.<br />
303. Krefting L. Trustworthiness. 1991;45(3):2<strong>14</strong>–<br />
222.<br />
Chapter 4 Case Study: Neonicotinoid<br />
Insecticides and Insect Pollinators<br />
1. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biological<br />
Sciences 281, 20<strong>14</strong>0558 (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
Chapter 4 Case Study: Nanomaterials<br />
1. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of<br />
Engineering Nanoscience and nanotechnologies:<br />
opportunities and uncertainties (2004). Available<br />
at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm<br />
2. Scientific Committee on Consumer<br />
Safety Opinion on Titanium Dioxide (nano<br />
form) (European Commission, 2013).<br />
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/<br />
scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/<br />
sccs_o_136.pdf<br />
3. European Commission Recommendation<br />
on the Definition of Nanomaterial. Official<br />
Journal of the European Union, L 275/38 (2011).<br />
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/<br />
industrial_technologies/pdf/policy/commissionrecommendation-on-the-definition-ofnanomater-18102011_en.pdf<br />
4. International Organization for Standardization<br />
Nanotechnologies — Guidance on voluntary<br />
labelling for consumer products containing<br />
manufactured nano-objects (ISO/TS<br />
13830:2013). Available at http://www.iso.org/<br />
iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=54315<br />
Chapter 5: Holding a Wider Conversation<br />
1. Menaker, D. (2000) A Good Talk: the story and<br />
skill of conversation. Basic Books, New York.<br />
2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and<br />
Development (2013) Survey of Adult Skills.<br />
OECD, Paris.<br />
3. Prince’s Trust (2012). Down But Not Out:<br />
tackling youth unemployment through enterprise.<br />
The Prince’s Trust, London.<br />
4. Piketty, T. (20<strong>14</strong>) Capital in the 21 st Century.<br />
Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.<br />
5. The Economist (2104) Picking holes in Piketty.<br />
The Economist, 31 st May, p.74.<br />
6. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit<br />
Level: why more equal societies almost always do<br />
better. Equality Trust, London<br />
7. Office for National Statistics (20<strong>14</strong>) Measuring<br />
national well-being: economic well-being. ONS,<br />
London<br />
8. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and<br />
Development (20<strong>14</strong>) Youth Unemployment.<br />
OECD, Paris.<br />
9. Ipsos Mori 20<strong>14</strong>. People in western countries<br />
pessimistic about future for young people. Ipsos<br />
Mori, London.<br />
10. Ryan, A. and Tilbury, D. (2013) Flexible<br />
Pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas. Higher<br />
Education Academy, London.<br />
11. Department of Energy and Climate Change<br />
(20<strong>14</strong>) Implementing geological disposal: a<br />
framework for the long term management of<br />
higher activity radioactive waste. DECC, London.<br />
12. House of Lords Committee on Science and<br />
Technology (2000) Science and Society: Third<br />
Report. London<br />
13. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,<br />
(1998. Setting Environmental Standards. Twentyfirst<br />
Report. RCEP, London.<br />
<strong>14</strong>. Wilsdon, J., and Willis, R. (2004) See-through<br />
Science: Why public engagement needs to move<br />
upstream. Demos, London<br />
15. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., and Wynne, B.<br />
(2005) Nanotechnology, governance and public<br />
deliberation: what role for the social sciences?<br />
Science Communication, 27, 268-291.<br />
16. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies,<br />
G., Eames, M., Staley, K., and Williamson,<br />
S. (2007). Deliberative mapping: a novel<br />
analytic-deliberative methodology to support<br />
contested science-policy decisions. Public<br />
Understanding of Science, 16, 299-322.<br />
17. Chilvers, J. (2012) Reflexive Engagement?<br />
actors, learning, and reflexivity in public<br />
dialogue on science and technology. Science<br />
Communication. 35 (3), 283-310.<br />
18. Royal Society Working Group on<br />
Nanotechnology and Nanoscience. (2004)<br />
Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities<br />
and uncertainties. The Royal Society and the<br />
Royal Academy of Engineering, London.<br />
19. Shepherd, JS (Chair) (2009) Geoengineering the<br />
Climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The<br />
Royal Society, London.<br />
20. Council for Science and Technology, Science<br />
and Society Subgroup (2005) Policy Through<br />
Dialogue: informing policies based on science and<br />
technology. Council for Science and Technology,<br />
London.<br />
21. Macnaghten, P. and Chilvers, J. (2012)<br />
Governing <strong>risk</strong>y technologies. In (eds.) In S.<br />
Lane, F. Klauser, & M. Kearnes, Critical Risk<br />
Research: practices, politics and ethics. Wiley-<br />
Blackwell, London, 99-124.<br />
22. Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and<br />
Communicative Action. MIT Press, Cambridge,<br />
MA.<br />
23. Johnson, J. (1991) Habermas on strategic and<br />
communicative action. Political Theory, 19 (2),<br />
181-201<br />
24. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon,<br />
N., Poortinga,, W. Murdock, G. and O’Riordan,<br />
T. (2007) The GM Debate: <strong>risk</strong>, politics and public<br />
engagement. Routledge, London.<br />
25. Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission<br />
(2001) Crops on Trial. Department of Trade<br />
and Industry, London.<br />
26. Lang, T. and Ingram, J. (2013) Food security<br />
twists and turns: why food systems need<br />
complex governance. In Addressing Tipping<br />
Points for a Precarious Future (eds. T. O’Riordan<br />
and T. Lenton), Oxford University Press,<br />
Oxford, 81-103.<br />
27. Chilvers, J. (2009) Deliberative and<br />
participatory approaches in environmental<br />
geography. In A Companion to Environmental<br />
Geography (eds. N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D.<br />
Liverman and B. Rhoads), Wiley-Blackwell,<br />
Oxford, doi: 10.1002/978<strong>14</strong>44305722.chapter<br />
24.<br />
28. Bickerstaff, K. “Because we’ve got history<br />
here”: nuclear waste, cooperative siting, and<br />
the relational geography of a complex issue.<br />
Environment and Planning A, 44, 2621-2628.<br />
Chapter 6: The need for a common language<br />
1. UK threat level raised (UK Security Service,<br />
2010). Available from: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/<br />
home/news/news-by-category/threat-levelupdates/uk-threat-level-raised.html<br />
2. IPCC. IPCC Fifth Assessment WG1: The<br />
Physical Science Basis [Internet]. 2013.<br />
Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/<br />
ar5/wg1/<br />
3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R,<br />
Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE:<br />
an emerging consensus on rating quality of<br />
<strong>evidence</strong> and strength of recommendations.<br />
BMJ. 2008 Apr;336(7650):924–6.<br />
4. Friedman JA, Zeckhauser R. Handling and<br />
Mishandling Estimative Probability: Likelihood,<br />
Confidence, and the Search for Bin Laden.<br />
Intell Natl Secur. 20<strong>14</strong> Apr 30;0(0):1–23.<br />
5. Pechey R, Spiegelhalter D, Marteau TM. Impact<br />
of plain packaging of tobacco products on<br />
smoking in adults and children: an elicitation of<br />
international experts’ estimates. BMC Public<br />
Health. 2013 Jan 9;13(1):18.<br />
6. Informed Choice about Cancer Screening.<br />
Publications [Internet]. ICCS. [cited<br />
20<strong>14</strong> Jul 7]. Available from: http://www.<br />
informedchoiceaboutcancerscreening.org/<br />
about-us/publications/<br />
7. DEFRA. About the Climate change projections<br />
[Internet]. 2012 [cited 20<strong>14</strong> Jul 7]. Available<br />
from: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.<br />
gov.uk/22537<br />
8. Champkin J. Lord Krebs. Significance. 2013<br />
Oct 1;10(5):23–9.<br />
Chapter 6 Case Study: Adapting regulation<br />
to changing <strong>evidence</strong> on <strong>risk</strong>s: delivering<br />
changes to pig inspection<br />
1. Food Standards Agency Review of official meat<br />
controls (20<strong>14</strong>). Available from http://www.<br />
165