How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople's talk

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

“…Corner and Pidgeon 2010: 32), this paper contributes further insights into similarities and variations in how lay sense-making occurred (cf. Burns et al 2016;Davies 2011) by analysing how analogies and metaphors served as tools for the focus group participants in grappling with ontological, epistemological and ethical aspects of climate engineering. As such, analogies and metaphors were key communicative resources in the focus groups, serving at least three types of rhetorical purposes.…”

Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat

“…As noted previously, science-fiction frames can guide the understanding of unfamiliar science like nanotechnology (Davies, 2011) Such metaphors filled the gap in the participants' knowledge and offered a conceptual scaffold for their reasoning. In line with Coleman and Ritchie's (2011) analysis of metaphors in biopolitical discourse, the science-fiction metaphors provided the participants with 'semantic packages' such as 'monster-out-of-control', 'irresponsible scientist' and 'monster movies' that guided their understanding but at the same time limited the scope for alternative interpretations.…”

“…in relation to GMOs (Marris et al, 2001), xenotransplantation (Michael and Brown, 2004), and nanotechnology (Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005). Others have noted that the public's discourses around biotechnology are often infused with metaphors like 'Frankenstein' (Huxford, 2000;Coleman and Ritchie, 2011), tropes like 'playing God' (van den Belt, 2009;Dragojlovic and Einsiedel, 2013), and analogies and comparisons (Michael and Brown, 2004;Davies, 2011).…”

“…It is arguably important to acknowledge at what point in the research and development stage of a technology public understanding of it is sought out so as to be able to distinguish between 'raw' sense-making of unfamiliarity and the expressions of attitudes or opinions which involve a certain degree of familiarity. Although the public can form opinions even in the absence of factual knowledge (Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005), it has been recognised that often little attention is paid to how opinions are formed in the context of unfamiliarity or what resources are deployed to help deal with the unfamiliar (Davies, 2011). Indeed, some have argued that the studying of public understanding of and engagement with technology 'upstream' in the process of innovation (Macnaghten, Kearnes and Wynne, 2005) may present certain advantages: firstly, it can offer the opportunity to explore how opinions on emerging technologies are created and what semantic frames and discursive resources are used to support their development.…”

Current State and Future Perspectives of Nanotechnology In Dentistry

“…It is unlikely that there is any segment of human life and activity in which nanotechnology cannot be applied. It is also estimated that nanotechnology will affect the psychology of people as well as their understanding of the world they live in (social phenomena, philosophical views and ethical considerations) [6,7,8]. According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, nanomedicine includes the application of nanotechnology in a "very specific medical intervention at the molecular level, i.e.…”