<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Doubleday, Robert</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The laboratory revisited : academic science and the responsible development of nanotechnology  </style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NanoEthics </style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">08/2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167-176.</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">English </style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The author discusses the debate about the meaning of “upstream public engagement,” in United Kingdom science policy in regard to nanotechnology, and follows with detailed description about a laboratory-based collaboration between social science and nanoscience whose goal is to explore the social dimensions of nanotechnology. This project suggests another meaning to “upstream” public engagement as a place in space rather then in time where interventions in the emergence of a new technology are possible. The author concludes that debates over the meaning of “upstream” can obscure the main point of these public engagement experiments, to ensure the transparency of deliberations and decisions made about the social and technical aspects of nanotechnology research and development.  </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167</style></section></record></records></xml>