CNS Publications Library

2013

  • Parkhill, K., Demski C., Butler C., Spence A., & Pidgeon N. (2013). Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability: Synthesis Report, (pp. 1-48). UKERC: London.
  • Parkhill, K., Pidgeon N., Corner A., & Vaughan N. (2013). Deliberation and responsible innovation: a geoengineering case study. In Owen, R., Bessant J., & Heintz M. (Eds.),. Responsible Innovation, (pp. 219-240). London: Wiley.
  • Pidgeon, N., Parkhill K., Corner A., & Vaughan N. (2013). Deliberating Stratospheric Aerosols for Climate Geoengineering and the SPICE Project. Nature Climate Change, (3)(5), (pp. 451-457). doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1807
  • Rayner, S., Clare H., Kruger T., Pidgeon N., Redgwell C., & Savulescu J. (2013). The Oxford Principles. Climactic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2
  • Satterfield, T. A., Conti J., Harthorn B. H., Pidgeon N., & Pitts A. (2013). Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Science and Public Policy, (40)(2), (pp. 247-260). doi: 10.1093/scippol/scs084

2012

  • Appelbaum, R. P., & Parker R. (2012). China’s Move to High Tech Innovation. In Dent, C., & Dosch J. (Eds.),. The Asia-Pacific, Regionalism And The Global System, (pp. 201-215). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
  • Appelbaum, R. P., Cao C., Parker R., & Motoyama Y. (2012). Nanotechnology as Industrial Policy: China and the United States. In Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. W. (Eds.),. The Social Life of Nanotechnology, (pp. 111-133). New York: Routledge.
  • Choi, H., & Otani T. (2012). Failure to Launch: Tarui Yasuo, the Quadrupole Transistor, and the Meanings of the IC in Postwar Japan. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, (34)(1), (pp. 48-59). Retrieved from
    http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2012/01/man2012010048-abs.html
    doi: 10.1109/MAHC.2011.86
  • Corner, A., & Pidgeon N. (2012). Nanotechnologies and Upstream Public Engagement: Dilemmas, Debates and Prospects?. In Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. (Eds.),. The Social Life of Nanotechnology, (pp. 247-283). New York: Routledge.
  • Corner, A., Pidgeon N., & Parkhill K. (2012). Perceptions of geoengineering: Public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives & the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIRES) Climate Change. doi: 10.1002/wcc.176
  • Eisler, M. N. (2012). Science that Pays for Itself: Nanotechnology and the Discourse of Science Policy Reform. In Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. (Eds.),. The Social Life of Nanotechnology, (pp. 19-36). New York: Routledge.
  • Eisler, M. N. (2012). Perspective: Where Nano Came From. In Priest, S. H. (Eds.),. Nanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication, (pp. 9-32). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  • Engeman, C., Baumgartner L., Carr B., Fish A., Meyerhofer J., Satterfield T. A., et al. (2012). Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, (14)(749), (pp. 1-12). Retrieved from
    http://www.chemeurope.com/en/publications/348190/governance-implications-of-nanomaterials-companies-inconsistent-risk-perceptions-and-safety-practices.html
    doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0749-0
  • Floradori, G., Figueroa S., Lau E. Z., & Invernizzi N. (2012). Nanotechnology: Distinctive Features in Latin America . Nanotechnology Law & Business, (9)(1), (pp. 88-103).
  • Foladori, G. (2012). Achieving Equitable Outcomes Through Emerging Technologies: A Social Empowerment Approach. In Parker, R., & Appelbaum R. P. (Eds.),. Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development?, (pp. 40-46). New York: Routledge.
  • Foladori, G., Figueroa S., Lau E. Z., & Invernizzi N. (2012). Características distintivas del desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en América Latina. Sociológicas, (14)(30), (pp. 330-363).
  • Foladori, G., & Invernizzi N. (2012). Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Zacatecas, Mexico and Curitiba, Brazil: ReLANS. Retrieved from
    http://www.relans.org/IPEN_NT_En.html
  • Foladori, G., & Invernizzi N. (2012). Implicaciones sociales y ambientales del desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en América Latina y el Caribe. Zacatecas, Mexico and Curitiba, Brazil: ReLANS. Retrieved from
    http://www.ipen.org/pdfs/Nanotecnologia_es.pdf
  • Foladori, G., Lau E. Z., Appelbaum R. P., & Parker R. (2012). Mexico-U.S. scientific collaboration in nanotechnology. Revista Frontera Norte (english edition) , (24)(48), (pp. 145-164).
  • Freudenburg, W., & Collins M. (2012). Public Responses to Nanotechnology: Risks to the Social Fabric?. In Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. (Eds.),. The Social Life of Nanotechnology, (pp. 241-264). New York: Routledge.
  • Friedman, S., & Egolf B. (2012). Perspective: What have the Mass Media been Reporting on Nanotechnology Risks?. In Priest, S. H. (Eds.),. Nanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication, (pp. 157-165). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  • Harthorn, B. H., Rogers J., Shearer C., & Martin T. (2012). Debating Nanoethics: U.S. Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology Applications for Energy and the Environment. In Scott, D., & Francis B. (Eds.),. Debating Science: Deliberation, Values, and the Common Good, (pp. 227-249). New York: Prometheus Books.
  • Harthorn, B. H., Shearer C., & Rogers J. (2012). Risk perception, public participation, and sustainable global development of nanotechnologies. In Parker, R., & Appelbaum R. P. (Eds.),. Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development?, (pp. 188-197). New York: Routledge.
  • Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. (2012). Introduction: The Social Scientific View of Nanotechnologies. In Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. (Eds.),. The Social Life of Nanotechnology, (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
  • Harthorn, B. H., & Mohr J. W. (2012). The Social Life of Nanotechnology. New York: Routledge.