| Title |
Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11051-015-3019-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ineke Malsch, Vrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Danail Hristozov, Antonio Marcomini, Martin Mullins, Karena Hester, Eamonn McAlea, Finbarr Murphy, Syed A. M. Tofail |
| Abstract |
The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 8 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,320,000
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#857
of 905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,133
of 264,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 905 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.