These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21898147)

  • 1. Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies.
    te Kulve H; Rip A
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):699-714. PubMed ID: 21898147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Engagement agents in the making: on the front lines of socio-technical integration : commentary on: "Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies".
    Conley SN
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):715-21. PubMed ID: 22068632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Art for public engagement on emerging and controversial technologies: A literature review.
    Fraaije A; van der Meij MG; Kupper F; Broerse JEW
    Public Underst Sci; 2022 Aug; 31(6):694-710. PubMed ID: 35570661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: the case of 'public engagement in science'.
    Bensaude Vincent B
    Public Underst Sci; 2014 Apr; 23(3):238-53. PubMed ID: 24495899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology.
    Krabbenborg L
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Jun; 22(3):907-22. PubMed ID: 26040841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies.
    Kyle R; Dodds S
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2009 Mar; 15(1):81-96. PubMed ID: 18825510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reflecting on public engagement and science policy.
    Jones RA
    Public Underst Sci; 2014 Jan; 23(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 24434708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ecological validity and the study of publics: The case for organic public engagement methods.
    Gehrke PJ
    Public Underst Sci; 2014 Jan; 23(1):77-91. PubMed ID: 23887250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Technologies of democracy: experiments and demonstrations.
    Laurent B
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):649-66. PubMed ID: 21853368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Redesigning the architecture of policy-making: Engaging with Māori on nanotechnology in New Zealand.
    Munshi D; Kurian PA; Morrison T; Morrison SL
    Public Underst Sci; 2016 Apr; 25(3):287-302. PubMed ID: 25193966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Publics in the making: mediating different methods of engagement and the publics these construct : commentary on: "Technologies of democracy: experiments and demonstrations".
    Mohr A
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):667-72. PubMed ID: 21984332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The broad challenge of public engagement in science: commentary on: "Constitutional moments in governing science and technology".
    van Est R
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):639-48. PubMed ID: 21785999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States.
    Guston DH
    Public Underst Sci; 2014 Jan; 23(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 24434713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building.
    Selin C; Rawlings KC; de Ridder-Vignone K; Sadowski J; Altamirano Allende C; Gano G; Davies SR; Guston DH
    Public Underst Sci; 2017 Aug; 26(6):634-649. PubMed ID: 26769749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Lab work goes social, and vice versa: strategising public engagement processes : commentary on: "What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory".
    Wynne B
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2011 Dec; 17(4):791-800. PubMed ID: 22015948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust.
    Siegrist M; Cousin ME; Kastenholz H; Wiek A
    Appetite; 2007 Sep; 49(2):459-66. PubMed ID: 17442455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector.
    Chaudhry Q; Scotter M; Blackburn J; Ross B; Boxall A; Castle L; Aitken R; Watkins R
    Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess; 2008 Mar; 25(3):241-58. PubMed ID: 18311618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production.
    Bouwmeester H; Dekkers S; Noordam MY; Hagens WI; Bulder AS; de Heer C; ten Voorde SE; Wijnhoven SW; Marvin HJ; Sips AJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Feb; 53(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 19027049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sustainable control strategies for plant protection and food packaging sectors by natural substances and novel nanotechnological approaches.
    Fortunati E; Mazzaglia A; Balestra GM
    J Sci Food Agric; 2019 Feb; 99(3):986-1000. PubMed ID: 30191564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Regulatory or regulating publics? The European Union's regulation of emerging health technologies and citizen participation.
    Flear ML; Pickersgill MD
    Med Law Rev; 2013; 21(1):39-70. PubMed ID: 23222171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.