La comprensión pública de la nanotecnología en España

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-689

Palabras clave:

nanotecnología, percepción social, comunicación pública

Resumen

La nanociencia y la nanotecnología son un campo reciente de investigación, desarrollo e innovación científica del que se esperan importantes transformaciones sociales. Tras la reacción en numerosos países contra innovaciones tecnocientíficas como los organismos genéticamente manipulados, nanociencia y nanotecnología se han convertido en un ámbito emblemático de la comprensión social de la ciencia y de la percepción del riesgo por ser un campo en ciernes que permite ir sondeando, observando y midiendo a la opinión pública en vivo, e ir testando sobre la marcha hipótesis acerca de cómo la gente percibe la ciencia y la tecnología contemporáneas. Sobre la sociedad española no se ha llevado a cabo ningún estudio específico de comprensión social de la nanociencia-nanotecnología. Los pocos datos que hay disponibles nos los proporcionan los eurobarómetros de la Comisión Europea, y la escueta pintura que emerge de ellos, con sus peculiaridades, no es muy distinta de la que existe a nivel general. Aquí ofrecemos algunos de esos datos disponibles. La nanociencia y la nanotecnología también son un desafío para la educación, la divulgación científica y la participación ciudadana, todo ello encaminado al aumento de la cultura de la sociedad y la gobernanza de la tecnología, aspectos que han quedado en un segundo plano hasta ahora y que son el reto pendiente en la comprensión pública de la nanociencia-nanotecnología.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Javier Gómez Ferri, Universitat de València

Profesor de Sociología en el Departamento de Sociología y Antropología Social.

Citas

ANDERSON, A. S., PETERSEN, A. y WILKINSON, C. (2005): “The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press,” Science Communication, vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 200-220.

AZKARATE, G. (2008): Aplicaciones Industriales de las Nanotecnologías en España en el Horizonte 2020.Estudio de Prospectiva, Madrid, Fundación OPTI.

BAINBRIDGE, W. S. (2002): “Public attitudes towards nanotechnology”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 4, nº 6, pp. 561-570.

BAINBRIDGE, W. S. (2004): Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: Research methodologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 6, pp. 285 - 299.

BESLEY, J. C.; KRAMER, V. L., y PRIEST, S. H. (2008): “Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, pp. 549-558.

BONAZZI, M. (2010): Communicating nanotechnology. Why, to whom, saying what and how? An action-packed roadmap towards a brand new dialogue, Luxemburgo, Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea.

BOWMAN, D, y HODGE, G. (2007): “Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,vol. 27, nº 2: pp. 118-132.

BROSSARD, D., SHEUFELE, D. A., KIM, E. y LEWENSTEIN, B. V. (2009): “Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 18, nº 5, pp. 546-558.

BURRI, R.V. (2009): “Coping with Uncertainty: Assessing Nanotechnologies in a Citizen Panel in Switzerland,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 18, nº 5, pp. 498- 511.

BURRI, R. V. y BELLUCCI, S. (2008): “Public perception of nanotechnology”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, nº 3, pp. 387-391.

CANADIAN BIOTECHNOLOGY SECRETARIAT (2005): International Public Opinion Research on Emerging Technologies: Canada-US Survey Results. Disponible en: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/View.asp?pmiid=524yx=720.

CACCIATORE, M. A., SCHEUFELE, D. A. y CORLEY, E.A. (2011): “From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 20, nº 3, 385-404.

CASTELLINI, O. M., WALEJKO, G. K., HOLLADAY, C. E., THEIM, T. J., ZENNER G. M. y CRONE, W. C. (2007): “Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 9, pp. 183-189.

CHILVERS, J. (2006): Engaging Research Councils? An evaluation of a Nanodialogues experiment in upstream public engagement,Birmingham, University of Birmingham. Disponible en: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/ NanodialogueEngagingResearchCouncilsEvaluationReport.pdf.

COBB, M. D. (2005): “Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology”, Science Communication,vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 221-239.

COBB, M. D. y MACOUBRIE, J. (2004): “Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 6, nº 4, pp. 395-405.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2001): Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, Science and Technology.Eurobarometer Special Survey 154, Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2002): Eurobarometer 58.0: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002,Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2005a): Eurobarometer 63.1 Europeans, Science and Technology. Eurobarometer Special Survey 224, Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2005b): Eurobarometer 63.1: Social Values, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 225, Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2005c): Eurobarometer 64.3 survey: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2010): Eurobarometer 73.1: Biotechnology. Special Eurobarometer 341, Bruselas, Directorate General Press and Communication.

COOK, A. J. y FAIRWEATHER, J.R. (2007): “Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology”, British Food Journal,vol. 109, nº 9, pp. 675-688.

CURRALL, S. C., KING, E. B., LANE, N., MADERA, J. y TURNER, S. (2006): “What Drives Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology?”, Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 1, nº 3, pp. 153-155.

DAVIES, S. R. (2011): “How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk”, Futures,vol. 43, nº 3, pp. 317-326.

DE CÓZAR, J.M. (2009): “Gobernar la nanotecnología. Un (breve) ensayo de democracia técnica”, en J. Riechmann (coord.): Nanomundos, multiconflictos. Una aproximación a las nanotecnologías,Barcelona, Icaria, pp. 93-107.

DOUBLEDAY, R. (2007): “Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 211-227.

EINSIEDEL, E. F. y GOLDENBERG, L. (2004): “Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front”, Bulletin of Science, Technology y Society,vol. 24, nº 1, pp. 28-33.

EINSIEDEL, E. F. (2005): “In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and US publics”, Azonano,vol. 1, pp. 1-10.

FABER, B. (2006): “Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986-1999”, Technical Communication Quarterly,vol. 15, nº 2, pp. 141-69.

FOGELBERG, H. y GLIMELL, H. (2003): Bringing Visibility To the Invisible: Towards ASocial Understanding of Nanotechnology,Goteborg, Universidad de Goteborg.

FRIEDMAN, S. M. y EGOLFF, B. P. (2005): “Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,vol. 24, pp. 5-11.

FUJITA, Y., YOKOHAA, H. y ABE, S. (2006): “Perception of nanotechnology among the general public in Japan-of the NRI Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project”, Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly,vol. 4, nº 1-2.

FUNTOWICZ, S. O. y RAVETZ, J. R. (1993/2000): La ciencia posnormal: Ciencia con la gente, Barcelona, Icaria.

GASKELL, G., EYCK, T. T., JACKSON, J. y VELTRI, G. (2004): “Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States”. Nature Materials, vol. 3, p. 496.

GASKELL, G., EYCK, T. T., JACKSON, J. y VELTRI, G. (2005): “Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 14, nº 1, pp. 81-90.

GORSS, J. y LEWENSTEIN, B. V. (2005): “The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press,1986-2004”, reporte presentando en la conferencia annual de la International Communication Association, 26-30 May, Nueva York.

GREGORY, R., FLYNN, J. y SLOVIC, P. (2001): “Technological stigma”, en J. Flynn, P. Slovic, y H. Kunreuther (eds.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science y Technology, Londres, Earthscan, pp. 3-8.

GROBE, A., SCHNEIDER, C., SCHETULA, V., REKIC, M. y NAWRATH, S. (2008): “Nanotechnologien. Was Verbraucher wissen wollen (Nanotechnologies: what consumers like to know)”, Berlín. Disponible en: http://www.vzbv.de/mediapics/studie _nanotechnologien_vzbv.pdf.

HART, P. D. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (2006): Report findings,Washington, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Disponible en: http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_ download/files/HartReport.pdf.

HART, P. D. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (2007): Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies, Washington, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Disponible en: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files /5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf.

HART, P. D. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (2008): Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology, Washington, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Disponible en: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/ 7040/final-synbioreport.pdf.

HART, P. D. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (2009): Hart surveys Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and Public Opinion, Washington, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Disponible en: http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/ 8286/.

HAYHURST, R., HECKL, W. M., MAGLIO, G., TÜRK, V. y BENNETT, D. (2005): “Talking Nano- What Makes Nanotechnology Special”, en M. Claessens (ed.): Communicating European Research 2005, pp. 227-232.

HO, S. H., SCHEUFELE, D. A. y CORLEY, E. A. (2011): “Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts”, Science Communication, vol. 33, nº 2, pp. 167-200.

HOCHGERNER, J., MARSCHALEK, I., MOSER, P., STRASSER, M., BLUM, J., SCHWARZER, S. y ZEGLOVITS, E. (2010): Nanoyou-WP1. Report on the Analysis of Survey Responses.Disponible en: http://nanoyou.eu/attachments/495_NANOYO U_D1.2_ZSI.pdf.

HOSSEINI, S. M. y REZAEI, R. (2011): “Factors affecting the perceptions of Iranian agricultural researchers towards”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 20, nº 4, pp. 513-524.

ILE-DE-FRANCE (2007): Citizens Recommendations on Nanotechnology, París, Espace Projects.

KAHAN, D. M., SLOVIC, P., BRAMAN, D., GASTIL, J. y COHEN, G. (2007): Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions-The Influence of Affect and Values.Disponible en: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2710/164_nanotechriskperceptio ns_dankahan.pdf.

KAHAN, D.M., BRAMAN, D., SLOVIC, P., GASTIL, J. y COHEN, G. (2009): “Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 4, nº 2, pp. 87-90.

KAPLAN, S. y RADIN, J. (2011): “Bounding an emerging technology: Para-scientific media and the Drexler-Smalley debate about nanotechnology”, Social Studies of Science,vol. 41, nº 4, pp. 457-485.

KATZ, E., LOVEL, R., MEE, W. y SOLOMON, F. (2005): Citizens’ Panel on Nanotechnology. Report to Participants.DMR-2673, CSIRO Minerals. Clayton South, Australia. Disponible en: http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/pubs/Citizens_Panel_Report _to_Participants_April_2005_final_110.pdf.

KEARNES, M., MACNAGHTEN, P. y WILSDON, J. (2006): Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies,Londres, Demos.

LAURENT, B. (2009): Replicating participatory devices: the consensus conference confronts nanotechnology, Working Papers, nº 18, París, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation. Disponible en: http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/.

LEE, C. J.; SCHEUFELE, D. A. y LEWENSTEIN, B. V. (2005): “Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology”, Science Communication, vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 240-267.

LEWENSTEIN, B.V. (2005): “Nanotechnology and the public”, Science Communication,vol. 27, nº 2, pp.169-174.

LEWENSTEIN B. V., RADIN, J. y DIELS, J. (2007): “Nanotechnology in the media: A preliminary analysis”, en M. C. Rocco y W. S. Bainbridge (eds): Nanotechnology: Societal Implications II: Individual Perspectives,Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 258-224.

MACNAGHTEN, P. y GUIVANT, J. S. (2011): “Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 20, nº2, pp. 207-220

MACNAGHTEN P., KEARNES M, y WYNNE B. (2005): “Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?”, Science Communication, vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 268-287.

MACOUBRIE, J. (2006): “Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 15, nº2, pp. 221-241.

MARKET ATTITUDE RESEARCH SERVICES (2008): Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology-trends 2005-2008, Australian Office of Nanotechnology report. Disponible en: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Public AwarenessandEngagement/Documents/Nanotechnology_Public_Attitudes_2009.pdf.

MCCRAY P. (2005): “Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future”, History and Technology,vol. 21, nº2, pp. 177-203.

MEE, W., LOVEL, R., SOLOMON, F., KEARNS, A., CAMERON, F. y TURNEY, T. (2004): Nanotechnology: The Bednigo Workshop, Clayton South. Disponible en: http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/pubs/Public%20report.pdf.

MEHTA, M. D. (2004): “From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn From Earlier Technologies?”, Bulletin of Science, Technology y Society, vol. 24, nº 1, pp. 34-39.

NANOBIORASE (s/f): Public Perceptions and Communication about Nanobiotechnology, Delft, NanoBio-RAISE Co-ordination office. Disponible en: http://files.nanobio-raise.org/Downloads/NanoPublicFINAL.pdf.

NANOJURY (2005): NanoJury UK: Our Provisional Recommendations, Londres, NanoJury UK. Disponible en: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/ MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7249.pdf.

NANOLOGUE (2006): Nanologue. Opinions on the Ethical, legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnologies. Results from a Consultation with Representatives from Research, Business and Civil Society. Disponible en: http://www.nanologue.net/custom/user/Downloads/NanologueWP34FinalPublic.pdf.

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (2000): National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. Areport by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, Washington. Disponible en: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/NSTC %20Reports/NNI2000.pdf.

NERESINI, F. (2006): “Starting off on the wrong foot: The public perception of nanotechnology and the deficit model”, Nanotechnology Perceptions, vol. 2, nº2, pp.189-195.

NERLICH, B., CLARKE, D. D. y ULPH, F. (2007): “Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp.159- 171.

NISBET, M. C. y LEWENSTEIN, B.V. (2002): “Biotechnology and the American media: the policy process and the elite press, 1970-1999”, Science Communication,vol. 23, nº4, pp. 359-391.

PETERSEN, A., ANDERSON, A., WILKINSON, C. y ALLAN, S. (2007): “Nanotechnologies, risk and society”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 117-124.

PIDGEON, N. y ROGERS-HAYDEN, T. (2007): “Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’?”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 191-210.

PIDGEON, N., HARTHORN, B.H., BRYANT, K. y ROGERS-HAYDEN, T. (2008): “Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the United States and United Kingdom”, Nature Nanotechnology,vol. 4, pp. 95-98.

POLLARA, I. (2004): “Public Opinion Research Findings on Emerging Technologies”, Disponible en: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=524ymp=521.

POWELL, M. C. y KLEINMAN, D. L. (2008): “Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, nº 3, pp. 329-348.

POWELL, M.C (2007): “New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 173-190.

PRIEST, S.H. (2005): “Commentary-Room at the Bottom of Pandora’s Box: Peril and Promise in Communicating Nanotechnology”, Science Communication,vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 292-299.

PRIEST, S.H. (2006): “The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 8, pp. 563-568.

RENN, O. y ROCO, M.C. (2006): “Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 8, nº 2, pp. 153-191.

REY, L. (2006): Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland: Report on publifocus discussion forum ‘Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment’,Berna, Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council. Disponible en: http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano_pfna/2006_TAP8_Nanotechnologien _e.pdf.

ROCO, M. C. (2003): “Broader societal issues of nanotechnology”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 5, pp. 181-189.

ROCO, M. C. y BAINBRIDGE, W. S. (2001): Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology,Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

ROYAL SOCIETY (2004): Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties,Londres. Disponible en: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm.

ROYAL SOCIETY AND ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (2004): Nanotecnologies: Views of the General Public, Londres. Disponible en: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/Market%20Research.pdf.

SATTERFIELD, T., KANDLIKAR, M., BEAUDRIE, C. E. H., CONTI, J. y HARTHORN, B. H. (2009): “Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies”, Nature Nanotechnology,vol. 4, pp. 752-758.

SCHEUFELE, D. A. (2006): “Five lessons in nano outreach”, Materials Today,vol. 9, nº 5, p. 64.

SCHEUFELE, D. A. y LEWENSTEIN, B. V. (2005): “The public and nanotechology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 7, pp. 659-657.

SCHEUFELE, D. A., CORLEY, E. A., DUNWOODY, S., SHIH, T. J., HILLBACK, E. y GUSTON, D. H. (2007): “Scientists Worry about Some Risks More than the Public”, Nature Nanotechnology,vol. 2, nº 12, pp. 732-734.

SCHEUFELE, D. A., CORLEY, E., SHIH, T. J., DALRYMPLE, K. y HO, S. (2008): “Religious Beliefs and Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States”, Nature Nanotechnology,vol. 4, nº 1, pp. 91-94.

SCHMIDT KJÆGAARD, R. (2010): “Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 19, nº 1, pp. 80-97.

SCHOMBERG, R. V. y DAVIES, S. (2010): Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy, Bruselas, Comisión Europea. Disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/ understanding-public-debate-on-nanotechnologies_en.pdf.

SCHUMMER, J. (2005): “Reading nano: the public interest in nanotechnology as reflected in purchase patterns of books”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 14, nº 2, pp. 163-183.

SCHÜTZ, H. y WIEDEMANN, P. M. (2008): “Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 17, nº 4, pp. 369-379.

SELIN C. (2007): “Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology”, Science, Technology, y Human Values, vol. 32, nº, pp. 196-220.

SERENA, P. A. y TUTOR, J. D. (2011): “La divulgación y la formación de la nanociencia y la nanotecnología en España: un largo camino por delante”, Mundo nano. Revista interdisciplinaria en Nanociencia y Nanotecnología, vol. 4, nº 2, pp. 48- 58.

SIEGRIST, M., COUSIN, M. E., KASTENHOLZ, H. y WIEK, A. (2007a): “Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging:The influence of affect and trust”, Appetite,vol. 49, nº 2, pp. 459-466.

SIEGRIST, M., KELLER. C., KASTENHOLZ, H., FREY, S. y WIEK, A. (2007b): “Laypeople’s and Experts’ Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards,” Risk Analysis, vol. 27, nº 1, pp. 59-69.

STEPHENS, L. F. (2005): “News Narratives about Nano SyT in Major U.S. and Non- U.S. Newspapers,” Science Communication,vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 175-99.

STILGOE, J. (2006): APeople’s Inquiry on Nanotechnology and the Environment, Londres, Demos.

STILGOE, J. (2007): Nanodialogues: Experiments in public engagement with science, Londres. Disponible en: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Nanodialogues%20- %20%20web.pdf.

TE KULVE, H. (2006): “Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands”, Science as Culture,vol. 15, nº 4, pp. 367-382.

TORRES, C., FERNÁNDEZ-ESQUINAS, M., REY-ROCHA, J. y MARTÍN-SEMPERE, M. J. (2011): “Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: scientists trapped in a golden cage”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 20, nº 1, pp. 12-25.

VANDERMOERE, F., BLANCHEMANCHE, S., BIEBERSTEIN, A., MARETTE, S. y ROOSEN, J. (2011): “The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature”, Public Understanding of Science,vol. 20, nº 2, pp. 195-206.

WALDRON, A., DOUGLAS, S, y BATT, C. (2006): “The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 8, nº 5, pp. 569-575.

WILKINSON, C., ALLAN, S., ANDERSON, A. y PETERSEN, A. (2007): “From uncertainty to risk?: Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety”, Health, Risk y Society,vol. 9, nº 2, pp. 145-157.

ZIMMER, R., DOMASCH, S., SCHOLL, G., ZSCHIESCHE, M., PETSCHOW, U., HERTEL, R.F., y BÖL, G. F. (2007): “Nanotechnologien im öffentlichen Diskurs: Deutsche Verbraucherkonferenz mit Votum. Technikfolgenabschätzung”, Theorie und Praxis,vol. 3, pp. 98-101.

ZIMMER, R., HERTEL, R. y BÖL, G. F. (eds.) (2010): BfR Delphi Study on Nanotechnology Expert Survey of the Use of Nanomaterials in Food and Consumer Products, Berlin, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Disponible en: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/bfr_delphi_study_on_nanotechnology.pdf.

Descargas

Publicado

2012-04-30

Cómo citar

Gómez Ferri, J. . (2012). La comprensión pública de la nanotecnología en España. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología Y Sociedad - CTS, 7(20), 177–207. https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-689

Número

Vol. 7 Núm. 20 (2012)

Sección

Dossier

Licencia

Derechos de autor 2024 CC Attribution 4.0

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.

Todos los números de CTS y sus artículos individuales están bajo una licencia CC-BY. 

Desde 2007, CTS proporciona un acceso libre, abierto y gratuito a todos sus contenidos, incluidos el archivo completo de su edición cuatrimestral y los diferentes productos presentados en su plataforma electrónica. Esta decisión se sustenta en la creencia de que ofrecer un acceso libre a los materiales publicados ayuda a un mayor y mejor intercambio del conocimiento.

A su vez, para el caso de su edición cuatrimestral, la revista permite a los repositorios institucionales y temáticos, así como también a las web personales, el auto-archivo de los artículos en su versión post-print o versión editorial, inmediatamente después de la publicación de la versión definitiva de cada número y bajo la condición de que se incorpore al auto-archivo un enlace a la fuente original.

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a