Public understanding of nanotechnology in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-689Keywords:
nanotechnology, social perception, public communicationAbstract
Nanoscience and nanotechnology are emerging fields of scientific research, development and innovation which are expected to produce important social transformations. After the backlash in various countries against techno-scientific innovations such as genetically modified organisms, nanoscience and nanotechnology have become a key area to understand how the public sees science and perceives risk, as it is a burgeoning field that allows us to canvass, observe and measure public opinion live, and to test the hypothesis of how people perceive contemporary science and technology as we go. No studies have been carried out on how Spanish society understands nanoscience and nanotechnology. The little data available comes from the European Commission’s eurobarometers and the sparse picture that emerges from them is not much different from that which already exists on a general level, with some particularities. This article presents some of the available data. Nanoscience and nanotechnology are a challenge for education, science outreach and public participation, all aimed at increasing public education and the governance of technology, aspects that have remained in the background until now and that are a challenge to be met in the public understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
Downloads
References
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
