- News + Media
Filters: First Letter Of Last Name is R [Clear All Filters]
Reflecting Upon the UK's citizens' Jury on Nanotechnologies: Nano Jury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business. 2, 167-178.(2006).
Health Risk Assessment for Nanoparticles: A Case for Using Expert Judgment. Journal of Nanoparticle Research . 9, 137-156.(2007).
Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies – Engaging Differently?. Nanoethics, Special Issue. 1, 123-176.(2007).
Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?. Health, Risk & Society, Special Issue. 9, 191-210.(2007).
Correspondence: Debating Nanoethics. The New Atlantis. 17(Summer),(2007).
Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: ‘upstream’ towards sustainability?. Journal of Cleaner Production . 16, 1010-1013.(2008).
Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Understanding of Science. 16, 345–364.(2008).
Upstream engagement. Scientific and Public Affairs. 11.(2008).
China’s Nanotechnology Patent Landscape: An Analysis of Invention Patents Filed with the State Intellectual Property Office. Nanotechnology Law and Business. 6, 524-539.(2009).
Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology. 4, 95-98.(2009).
Gendered risk beliefs about emerging nanotechnologies in the US. University of Washington Center for Workforce Development.(2009).
The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environmental Science and Technology. 43, 3030-3034.(2009).
Center for Nanotechnology in Society-UC Santa Barbara. ( , Ed.).Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. 80-82.(2010).
Friends of the Earth Nanotechnology Project. ( , Ed.).Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. 261-262.(2010).
iPod Nano. ( , Ed.).Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. 363-365.(2010).
Gender, Application Domain, and Ethical Dilemmas in Nano-Deliberation [White paper]. Nanotech Risk Perception Specialist Meeting.(2010).
Climbing the Hill: Seeing (and Not Seeing) Epochal Breaks from Multiple Vantage Points. ( , Ed.).Science Transformed?: Debating Claims of an Epochal Break. 54-65.(2011).
Exploring Ambivalence: Techno-Enthusiasm and Skepticism in US Nanotech Deliberations. ( , Ed.).Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies. 75-89.(2011).
From Biotech to Nanotech: Public Debates about Technological Modification of Food. Environment and Society: Advances in Research. 2, 149-169.(2011).
Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development. ( , Ed.).Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020. 561-618.(2011).
Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research . 13, 3557-3590.(2011).
Using Expert Judgment for Risk Assessment. ( , Ed.).Assessing Nanoparticle Risks to Human Health. 110-138.(2011).
Debating Nanoethics: U.S. Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology Applications for Energy and the Environment. ( , Ed.).Debating Science: Deliberation, Values, and the Common Good. 227-249.(2012).
Different Uses, Different Responses: Exploring Emergent Cultural Values through Public Deliberation. ( , Ed.).The Social Life of Nanotechnology. 195-222.(2012).
Food Security: From the Green Revolution to Nanotechnology. ( , Ed.).Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development?. 75-85.(2012).