C. News, Nanotechnology: opportunity or threat, 2003.

C. Lucas, The Guardian 25 BBC News The truth about nanotechnology 26 The Guardian Don't believe the nanotechnology scare stories Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis on the Basis of a Workshop Organized in Brussels Getting past 'grey goo, 2003.

C. News, Nanotechnology: Opportunity or Threat? 12 June 39 CORDIS News Supporting responsible nanotechnology research will benefit Europe's citizens, says head of unit, 2003.

T. Harper, Greenpeace to nanotechnology: let's be rational about this, Nanotechweb.org, Augest, vol.1, issue.2006, 2003.

J. Hogan, No nanotech ban, says Greenpeace http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924051.000-no-nanotech-ban-says-greenpeace.html http://hiltrudbreyer.eu/en/ct/488-A-lift-for-cosmetics-legislation-as-Greens-secure-nanomaterial-safeguards 220, New Scientist, 2003.

C. News, html 223 ObservatoryNANO Nanotechnology in Cosmeticsnanotechnology-in-cosmetics-observatorynano 268 Chemical Watch The biocides market for nano actives, Global Business Briefing, vol.3405965, 2003.

F. Australia, European Commission appears determined to scupper nano-register/european-commission-appears-determined-to-scupper-nano-register/ 343 Interview with Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, NanoDiode project coordinator within ETUI Swedish chemicals agency to draft nanomaterial registry, 344 Chemical Watch, p.608, 2014.

C. Watch, Norway suggests adaptation of REACH to address nanomaterial risk https://chemicalwatch.com/9680/norway-suggests-adaptation-of-reach-to-address-nanomaterial-risk 366 Nanomaterials Policy Conference Choices for Safety ? RIVM, pp.8-9119609, 2012.

S. Hassi, First reaction to the second regulatory review on nanomaterials European Commission workshop 11 th meeting of competent authorities for REACH and CLP, 382 European Commission, 2013.

C. Watch, EU countries question Commission's stance on nanomaterials regulationeu-countries-question-commissions-stance-on-nanomaterials-regulation 384 The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA). 2013 Nanomaterials and REACH Background Paper on the Position of German Competent Authorities Member States consider road for EU nano policy, pdf 385 Chemical Watch, 2013.

C. Watch, EU nano group debates REACH annex options: NGOs concerned about proposal to reduce compliance for nanomaterials https://chemicalwatch.com/14579/eu-nano-group-debates-reach-annex-options 390 http://veillenanos.fr/wakka.php?wiki=NanoReach 391 Chemical Watch. 2013 Guest column: nano & REACH, Global Business Briefing, 2013.

C. Watch, European Commission presents 'non paper' on nano https://chemicalwatch.com/19677/european-commission-presents-non-paper-on-nano 396 These Member States are: Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden, supported by those from Norway, Croatia, Luxembourg and Greece 397 ENDS Europe Ministers tell Brussels to strengthen chemical regulation, 2014.

C. Watch, EU environment ministers tell Commission to prioritise chemicals actions, 2014.

C. Watch, Dancet asks EU Commission to speed up nano work December 4. https://chemicalwatch.com/22158/dancet-asks-eu-commission-to-speed-up-nano-work 400 Chemical Watch REACH nano registration rules coming next year, says Vella, 2014.

C. Watch, Sweden's vision for REACH, Global Business Briefing, 2015.

C. Watch, Denmark to target hazardous substances, nanomaterials in 2012, 2011.

C. Watch and C. &. Bund, REACH nano registration rules coming next year, says Vellacom/22345/reach-nano-registration-rules-coming-next-year-says-vella 449 Chemical Watch EU nanomaterials register looks unlikely NGO comments on Transparency measures for nanomaterials on the market: Working conclusions, 451 Interview with Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, NanoDiode project coordinator within ETUI, 2014.

N. Allum, P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, and I. Brunton-smith, Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis, Public Understanding of Science, vol.17, issue.1, pp.10-1177, 2008.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662506070159
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571109

V. Garkov, L. Bontoux, and P. Martin, Into the Unknow Public Service Review: European Union-Issue 19, 2010.

G. Gaskell, Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology, Nature, vol.387, pp.845-892, 1997.

G. Gaskell and N. Allum, Sound Science, Problematic Publics? Contrasting Representations of Risk and Uncertainty, Notizie Di Politeia, vol.17, issue.63, pp.13-25, 2001.

J. Olsthoorn, Communication. Social Values and the Governance of Science, Science, vol.310, issue.5756, pp.1908-1917, 2005.

G. Gaskell, T. T. Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri, Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States, Public Understanding of Science, vol.14, issue.1, pp.81-90, 2005.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662505048949
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571057

K. Gavelin, R. Wilson, and R. Doubleday, Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnologies Engagement Group(NEG) London: Involve. http://www.involve.org, 2007.

V. Gewin, Nanotech's Big Issue, Nature Publishing Group, vol.443, p.137, 2006.

M. Gibbons, Science's New Social Contract with Society, Nature, vol.402, issue.supp, pp.81-84, 1999.
DOI : 10.1038/35011576

J. Giles, Nanotechnology: What Is There to Fear from Something so Small?, Nature, vol.426, issue.6968, pp.750-760, 2003.

M. Godman, But is it Unique to Nanotechnology?, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol.9, issue.3, pp.391-403, 2008.
DOI : 10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y

D. Graur, Public control could be a nightmare for researchers, Nature, vol.450, issue.7173, 2007.
DOI : 10.1038/4501156b

. Greenpeace, Transforming Science: A Matter of Public Involvement, 2002.

D. J. Grimshaw, J. Stilgoe, and L. D. Gudza, The Role of New Technologies in Potable Water Provision: A Stakeholder Workshop Approach, Report on the Nano-Dialogues, vol.15, 2006.

A. G. Gross, The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science, Public Understanding of Science, vol.14, issue.3, pp.3-23, 1994.
DOI : 10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001

D. H. Guston, Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society, 2010.
DOI : 10.4135/9781412972093

D. H. Guston and D. Sarewitz, Real-time technology assessment, Technology in Society, vol.24, issue.1-2, pp.93-10910, 2002.
DOI : 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1

J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interest. Translated by, 1971.

R. P. Hagendijk, The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds, Minerva, vol.42, issue.1, pp.41-59, 2004.
DOI : 10.1023/B:MINE.0000017699.19747.f0

S. Hansen, A. Foss, and . Baun, When enough is enough, Nature Nanotechnology, vol.6, issue.7, pp.409-420, 2012.
DOI : 10.1093/jac/dkm006

S. Hansen, D. Foss, and . Gee, Adequate and anticipatory research on the potential hazards of emerging technologies: a case of myopia and inertia?: Table??1, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol.17, issue.1, pp.890-95, 2014.
DOI : 10.1136/jech-2014-204019

L. Hanssen, B. Walhout, and R. Van-est, Ten Lessons for a Nanodialogue: The Dutch Debate about Nanotechnologies Thus Far. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 2008.

P. Healey and H. Glimell, European Workshop on Social and Economic Issues of Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences. Brussels, 2004.

A. Hermann, M. Diesner, J. Abel, C. Hawthorne, and A. Greßmann, Assessment of Impacts of a European Register of Products Containing Nanomaterials, 2013.

H. Treasury, Science and Innovation Investment Framework HM Treasury/Department for Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Skills, 2004.

T. Horlick-jones, Meaning and contextualisation in risk assessment, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol.59, issue.1, pp.79-89, 1998.
DOI : 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00122-1

M. Horst, On the weakness of strong ties, Public Understanding of Science, vol.23, issue.1, pp.43-47, 2014.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662512473392

M. Horst and A. Irwin, Nations at Ease with Radical Knowledge, Social Studies of Science, vol.44, issue.33, 2010.
DOI : 10.1177/0306312709341500

A. Hullmann, European Activities in the Field of Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) and Governance of Nanotechnology. European Commission, DG Research, Unit " Nano and Converging Sciences and Technologies, 2008.

I. Illuminato, Climate and Energy: Over-Heated Promises and Hot Air? FoE Australia, Europe and United States, 2010.

E. Ipen, Nanotechnologies and the Environment: A Mismatch between Claims and Reality, 2009.

A. Irwin, The Politics of Talk, Social Studies of Science, vol.33, issue.3, pp.299-320, 2006.
DOI : 10.1177/0306312706053350

A. Irwin, A. Dale, and D. Smith, Science and Hell's Kitchen: The Local Understanding of Hazard Issues In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp.47-64, 1996.

A. Irwin and B. Wynne, Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, 1996.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511563737

S. Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, 2005.
DOI : 10.1515/9781400837311

J. Deuten, J. , A. Rip, and J. Jelsma, Societal embedding and product creation management, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol.40, issue.2, pp.131-179, 1997.
DOI : 10.1080/09537329608524232

N. Jaspers, Not Another GMO: Explaining Europe's Approach to Nanotechnologies KFG Working Paper Series The Transformative Power of Europe, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG), issue.44, 2012.

P. Joly, A. Benoit, and . Kaufmann, Lost in Translation? The Need for ???Upstream Engagement??? with Nanotechnology on Trial, Science as Culture, vol.66, issue.3, pp.225-272, 2008.
DOI : 10.1177/0162243907301086

A. Joop, Note on the Safety of Nanomaterials. To Mr, European Commissioner for Environment. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment of the Netherlands, 2012.

. Justo-hanani, T. Ronit, and . Dayan, European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy, Research Policy, vol.44, issue.8, pp.1527-1563, 2015.
DOI : 10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.001

J. X. Kasperson and S. Ratick, The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework, Risk Analysis, vol.56, issue.4, pp.177-87, 1988.
DOI : 10.1007/BF02207556

M. B. Kearnes, R. Grove-white, P. M. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne, From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy, Science as Culture, vol.6, issue.4, pp.291-307, 2006.
DOI : 10.1080/09505430120093586

M. Kearnes, P. Macnaghten, and J. Wilsdon, Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies, 2006.

A. Kellow and . Ey, Norms, interests and environment NGOs: The limits of cosmopolitanism, Environmental Politics, vol.71, issue.3, pp.1-22, 2000.
DOI : 10.1017/S0260210500118455

C. Kelty, Beyond Implications and Applications: the Story of ???Safety by Design???, NanoEthics, vol.91, issue.1, pp.79-96, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/s11569-009-0066-y

C. Klaß, DRAFT REPORT: On the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Placing on the Market and Use of, Biocidal Products (COM, vol.0076, p.76, 2009.

J. Klein, Probing the interactions of proteins and nanoparticles, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.104, issue.7, pp.2029-2059, 2007.
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.0611610104

L. Klüver, Consensus Conferences at the Danish Board of Technology In Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, Science Museum, pp.41-49, 1995.

L. Krabbenborg, Involvement of Civil Society Actors in Nanotechnology: Creating Productive Spaces for Interaction, 2013.

L. Krabbenborg, A. J. Henk, and . Mulder, Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities, Science Communication, vol.37, issue.4, pp.452-84, 2015.
DOI : 10.1177/1075547015588601

L. Krabbenborg, Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol.34, issue.1, 2015.
DOI : 10.1177/1075547011408926
URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912574

J. Kreuter, D. Shamenkov, V. Petrov, P. Ramge, K. Cychutek et al., Apolipoprotein-mediated Transport of Nanoparticle-bound Drugs Across the Blood-Brain Barrier, Journal of Drug Targeting, vol.10, issue.4, pp.317-2510, 1080.
DOI : 10.1080/10611860290031877

K. Kulinowski, Nanotechnology: From ???Wow??? to ???Yuck????, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol.24, issue.1, pp.13-20, 2004.
DOI : 10.1177/0270467604263112
URL : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.531.7281

M. Kurath and P. Gisler, Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology, Public Understanding of Science, vol.18, issue.5, pp.559-73, 2009.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662509104723

R. Kyle and S. Dodds, Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol.27, issue.2, pp.81-96, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y

N. Laffite, P. Baya, and . Joly, Nanotechnology and Society: Where Do We Stand in the Ladder of Citizen Participation? " Citizen Participation in Science and Technology Newsletter, 2008.

B. Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, 1987.

B. Laurent, DIVERGING CONVERGENCES, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol.10, issue.4, pp.343-5710, 1080.
DOI : 10.1080/13511610701760804

J. Lee, Global Nanotechnology Advocacy by NGOs. Geneve, Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations. http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files, pp.37507675-37507677, 2006.

. Legambiente, Towards a Sustainable and Responsible Development of Nanotechnologies, 2009.

J. Levy-leblond, La Techno-Science Étouffera-T-Elle La Science ? Conférence de janvier 2000, éditée par la Mission Agrobiosciences, Conseil regional Midi Pyrénées, 2000.

E. Lovbrand, R. P. Jr, and S. Beck, A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol.36, issue.4, pp.474-96, 2011.
DOI : 10.1177/0162243910366154

J. Lubchenco, Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science, Science, vol.279, issue.5350, pp.491-97, 1998.
DOI : 10.1126/science.279.5350.491

L. Research, Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled Products Increase, 2014.

P. Macnaghten, M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne, Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?, Science Communication, vol.27, issue.2, pp.10-1177, 2005.
DOI : 10.1177/1075547005281531

C. Marris, P. Joly, and A. Rip, Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an iTA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol.33, issue.1, pp.77-100
DOI : 10.1177/0162243907306195

S. Mayer, From Genetic Modification to Nanotechnology: The Dangers of 'Sound Science, Science: Can We Trust the Experts, 2002.

A. D. Maynard, Nanotechnology: The next Big Thing, or Much Ado about Nothing? Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2007.

M. Michael, Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp.47-64, 1996.

G. Miller, Cosmetics, Nanotoxicity and Skin Penetration-a Brief Summary of the Toxicological and Skin Penetration LiteratureCosmetics-nanotoxicity-and-ski n-penetration, 2006.

G. Miller and G. Scrinis, The Role of NGOs in Governing Nanotechnologies: Challenging the ???Benefits versus Risks??? Framing of Nanotech Innovation, International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, 2010.
DOI : 10.4337/9781849808125.00029

J. D. Miller, The measurement of civic scientific literacy, Public Understanding of Science, vol.3, issue.7, pp.203-226, 1998.
DOI : 10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001

S. Miller, Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads, Public Understanding of Science, vol.1010308, issue.11, pp.115-135, 2001.

A. Mnyusiwalla, S. Abdallah, . Daar, A. Peter, and . Singer, ??Mind the gap??: science and ethics in nanotechnology, Nanotechnology, vol.14, issue.3, pp.9-13, 0201.
DOI : 10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201

A. Mohr, Against the Stream: Moving Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies Upstream In Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, 2007.

D. Osgood, Dig It Up: Global Civil Society's Responses to Plant Biotechnology, In Global Civil Society, pp.79-107, 2001.

D. Parr, Without a Reality Check, Claims of Nanotech's Benefits Are a Con, 2003.

D. Pesendorfer, EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?, Environmental Politics, vol.5, issue.1, pp.95-114, 2006.
DOI : 10.1080/09644010500418803

J. Peterson, Policy Networks, European Integration Theory, p.312, 2004.

N. Pidgeon, B. Herr-harthorn, K. Bryant, and T. Rogers-hayden, Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom, Nature Nanotechnology, vol.15, issue.2, pp.95-98, 2009.
DOI : 10.1038/nnano.2008.362

N. Pidgeon, B. Harthorn, and T. Satterfield, Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges, Risk Analysis, vol.52, issue.1, pp.1694-1700, 2011.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x

N. Pidgeon and T. Rogers-hayden, Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ???upstream engagement????, Health, Risk & Society, vol.9, issue.2, pp.191-210, 2007.
DOI : 10.1080/13698570701306906

N. Pidgeon, Risk, Uncertainty and Social Controversy: From Risk Perception and Communication to Public Engagement, Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, pp.349-61, 2008.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01856.x

C. A. Poland, R. Duffin, I. Kinloch, A. Maynard, A. William et al., Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology, vol.67, issue.7, pp.423-451, 2008.
DOI : 10.1038/nnano.2008.111

S. Rayner, The Novelty Trap: Why Does Institutional Learning about New Technologies Seem So Difficult?, Industry and Higher Education, vol.18, issue.6, pp.349-55, 2004.
DOI : 10.5367/0000000042683601

O. Renn, A Model for an Analytic???Deliberative Process in Risk Management, Environmental Science & Technology, vol.33, issue.18, pp.3049-55, 1999.
DOI : 10.1021/es981283m

R. Grove-white, M. Kearnes, P. Miller, P. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon et al., Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, 2004.

M. C. Roco and W. S. Bainbridge, Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol.6, issue.1, pp.13-23, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/s11051-004-2336-5

. Rogers-hayden, A. Tee, N. Mohr, and . Pidgeon, Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies ??? Engaging Differently?, NanoEthics, vol.16, issue.4, pp.123-153, 2007.
DOI : 10.1007/s11569-007-0013-8

R. Raeng, Summary of Evidence from Civil Society Groups at a Meeting with the Nanotechnology Working Group on 30, 2003.

D. A. Scheufele, Modern Citizenship or Policy Dead End? Evaluating the Need for Public Participation in Science Policy Making, and Why Public Meetings May Not Be the Answer. Paper #R-34, 2011.

J. Schirmer, Nanotechnology in Context: Science, Non-Governmental Organisations and the Challenge of Communication The European Inter-University, 2004.

R. Schomberg and S. Davies, Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies:Options for Framing Public Policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.

R. Sclove, Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010.

F. Seifert, Diffusion and Policy Learning in the Nanotechnology Field: Movement Actors and Public Dialogues in Germany and France, Shaping Emerging Technologies, 2013.

F. Seifert and A. Plows, From Anti-Biotech to Nano-Watch: Early Risers and Spin-Off Campaigners in Germany, the UK and Internationally, NanoEthics, vol.9, issue.3, pp.73-89, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s11569-014-0189-7

H. Selin, Coalition Politics and Chemicals Management in a Regulatory Ambitious Europe, Global Environmental Politics, vol.2, issue.1, pp.63-93, 2007.
DOI : 10.1080/13501769608407055

R. Senjen, A Critical Review of Governance Issues in Europe and Elsewhere, Issue 3. EEB series: nanotechnologies in the 21st century, 2009.

M. Siegrist, C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, S. Frey, and A. Wiek, Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards, Risk Analysis, vol.57, issue.1, pp.59-69, 2007.
DOI : 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00533.x

J. Stilgoe, Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science, 2007.

J. Stilgoe, J. Simon, J. Lock, and . Wilsdon, Why should we promote public engagement with science?, Public Understanding of Science, vol.23, issue.1, pp.15-25, 2014.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662513518154
URL : http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1417989/1/Public_Understanding_of_Science-2014-Stilgoe-4-15.pdf

A. Stirling, Opening up' and 'Closing down' Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology, pp.262-94, 2008.

A. Stirling, Science and Society " to " Science in Society " : Towards a Framework for " Co-Operative Research Report of a European Commission Workshop, pp.24-25, 2005.

P. Sturgis and N. Allum, Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes, Public Understanding of Science, vol.13, issue.1, 2004.
DOI : 10.1177/0963662504042690

M. Suraud and . Gabrielle, La Contestation Des « Nanos » : redéfinir La Notion de « Politisation de La Science Les Enjeux de l'Information et de La Communication, 2013.

M. Suraud, . Gabrielle, . Barrey-sandrine, . Patrick, . Paolo et al., Les Nanoactivités À L'épreuve de Leur Légitimation, Marie-Gabrielle Suraud RAPPORT FINAL REPERE + NanoInnov, 2011.

S. Re, Zurich: Swiss Re, Nanotechnology: Small Matter, 2004.

J. Tait, Upstream engagement and the governance of science. The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe, EMBO reports, vol.1, issue.1, pp.18-22, 2009.
DOI : 10.1159/000092659

D. Taverne, Let's be sensible about public participation, Nature, vol.432, issue.7015, pp.271-271, 2004.
DOI : 10.1038/431883a

C. Toumey, Science and democracy, Nature Nanotechnology, vol.24, issue.1, pp.6-7, 2006.
DOI : 10.1038/nnano.2006.71

J. Turney, Public understanding of science, The Lancet, vol.347, issue.9008, pp.1087-90, 1996.
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90283-4

. Van-den-hoven, G. J. Jeroen, I. Lokhorst, and . Van, Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overload, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol.70, issue.1, pp.143-55, 2012.
DOI : 10.1007/s11948-011-9277-z

J. Van-loon, Virtual Risks in an Age of Cybernetic Reproduction In The Risk Society and beyond : Critical Issues for Social Theory, 232 Formaat: cm Foutief ISBN, pp.0-7619, 2000.

M. E. Vance, T. Kuiken, P. Eric, . Vejerano, P. Sean et al., Nanotechnology in the real world: Redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory, Nanotechnology in the Real World: Redeveloping the Nanomaterial Consumer Products Inventory, pp.1769-80, 2015.
DOI : 10.3762/bjnano.6.181

R. Williams, Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. Edited by Robin Gable, 1989.

R. Willis and J. Wilsdon, Technology, Risk and the Environment, The Progressive Manifesto, 2003.

J. Wilsdon and R. Willis, See-through Science Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, 2004.

S. Wood, R. Jones, and A. Geldart, The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. Economic and Social Research Council, 2003.

J. Wullweber, Protest and the Lack of an Anti-Nano Movement, Nanotechnology Neue Soziale Bewegungen, vol.27, issue.4, pp.92-102, 2014.

J. Wullweber and A. Vlandas, Talking about the Revolution: Nanotechnology and Public Dialogues, pp.61-103, 2006.

B. Wynne, Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science ??? Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?, Public Health Genomics, vol.9, issue.3, pp.211-231, 2006.
DOI : 10.1159/000092659

A. Zilberszac, Nanomaterials and Safe Food Production?Point of View of the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth Nanotechnologies -The Present State of Regulation, Presentation to the NanoTrust Conference on, p.29, 2008.