How Smart Grid Meets In Vitro Meat: on Visions as Socio-Epistemic Practices (original) (raw)
McCray WP (2012) The visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
Nordmann A (2013) Visioneering assessment: on the construction of tunnel visions for technovisionary research and policy science. Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):89–94 Google Scholar
Alvial Palvacino C (2016) Mindful anticipation. A practice approach to the study of emergent technologies. Dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede Google Scholar
Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations: the interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):429–444 Article Google Scholar
Van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Dissertation University of Twente, Enschede Google Scholar
Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):285–298 Article Google Scholar
Van Lente H (2012) Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(8):769–782
Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) (2000) Vision assessment: shaping technology in twenty-first century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Berlin, New York
Grunwald A (2012) Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe Google Scholar
Grunwald A (2014) The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(3):274–291 Article Google Scholar
Rip A, Voss J-P (2013) Umbrella terms as mediators in the governance of emerging science and technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):39–59 Google Scholar
Dierkes M, Hoffman U, Marz L (1996) Visions of technology. Social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, New York
Mambrey P, Tepper A (2000) Technology assessment as a metaphor assessment. Visions guiding the development of information and communications. In: Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) Vision assessment: shaping technology in twenty-first century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 33–52
Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Farnham Google Scholar
Lösch A (2010) Visual dynamics: the defuturization of the popular ‘nano-discourse’ as an effect of increasing economization. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 89–108 Chapter Google Scholar
Selin C (2007) Expectations in the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220 Article Google Scholar
Böhle K, Bopp K (2014) What a vision: the artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 10(1):155–186 Google Scholar
Ferrari A, Coenen C, Grunwald A (2012) Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. NanoEthics 6(3):215–229 Article Google Scholar
Lösch A (2013) Vision Assessment zu Human-Enhancement-Technologien. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu einer Analytik von Visionen im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Kommunikationsprozesse. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 22(1):9–16 Google Scholar
Callon M (1995) Four models for the dynamics of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 29–63 Google Scholar
Callon M (1999) Some elements of a sociology of translation. Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge, New York, London, pp 67–83 Google Scholar
Grunwald A (2015) Die hermeneutische Erweiterung der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 24(2):65–69
Adam B, Groves C (2007) Future matters: action, knowledge, ethics. Brill, Leiden, Boston Book Google Scholar
Lösch A (2006a) Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: visionary images as means of communication. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):393–409 Article Google Scholar
Lösch A (2006b) Means of communicating innovations. A case study for the analysis and assessment of nanotechnology’s futuristic visions. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 2:103–125 Google Scholar
Rheinberger HJ (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things, synthesizing proteins in a test tube. Stanford Uni. Press, Standford Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina K (1997) Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society 14(4):1–30 Article Google Scholar
Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology Human Values 35(5):601–617 Article Google Scholar
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1999) Institutional ecology, ‘translation,’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge. New York, London, pp 505–524 Google Scholar
Post, M. J. (2013) Cultured beef for food-security and the environment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = XnJn37jiX88 Accessed 20 July 2016
Catts O, Zurr I (2014) Growing for different ends. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 56:20–29 Article Google Scholar
O’Riordan, K., Fotopoulou, A., Stephens, N. (2016) The first bite. Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662516639001
Datar, I. (2016a) In vitro meat is cultured. In: Post M., Stephens N., Datar I. (eds.) What Is In Vitro Meat? (2). Food Phreacking, Issue 2: 16–21
Ferrari A (2017) Nonhuman animals as food in biocapitalism. In: Nibert D (ed) Capitalism and animal oppression. Prager Press, Broomfield, CO (in press) Google Scholar
Post MJ (2012) Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci 92(3):297–301 Article Google Scholar
Stephens N (2013) Growing meat in laboratories. The promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations 21(2):159–181 Article Google Scholar
Tuomisto HL, Teixeira de Mattos MJ (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45(14):6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u Article Google Scholar
Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR (2015) A case for systemic environmental analysis of cultured meat. J Integr Agric 14(2):249–254 Article Google Scholar
Bonny S et al (2015) What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? J Integr Agric 14(2):255–263 Article Google Scholar
Post, M. J. (2016) In vitro meat is an emerging technology. In: Post M., Stephens N., Datar I. (eds.) What Is In Vitro Meat? (2). Food Phreacking, Issue 2: 10–15
Post MJ (2014) Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 94(6):1039–1041 Article Google Scholar
Forgacs, A. (2014) The benefits of in vitro meat. Jason Point in MIT Technology Review, EmTech, September 23, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = ujDMGOcczhY Accessed 20 July 2016
Datar, I. (2016b) On animal products without animals, Bitten: A food conversation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = 5FbQ89PFSsk&feature = youtube Accessed 20 July 2016
Ferrari A (2016) Envisioning the futures of animals through in vitro meat. EurSafe 2016. Book of proceedings. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 265–270 Google Scholar
Simonsen R (2015) Eating for the future: veganism and the challenge of in vitro meat. In: Stapleton P, Byers A (eds) Biopolitics and utopia. An interdisciplinary reader. Palgrave Macmillan Singer, New York, pp 167–190
Miller J (2012) In vitro meat: power, authenticity and vegetarianism. Journal for Critical Animal Studies (JCAS) 10(4):41–63 Google Scholar
Lösch A, Schneider C (2016) Transforming power/knowledge apparatuses: the smart grid in the German energy transition. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 29(3):262–284. doi:10.1080/13511610.2016.1154783 Google Scholar
Ramchurn SD, Vytelingum P, Rogers A, Jennings NR (2012) Putting the ‘smarts’ into the smart grid: a grand challenge for artificial intelligence. Commun ACM 55(4):86–97. doi:10.1145/2133806.2133825 Article Google Scholar
B.A.U.M Consult GmbH (2012) Smart Energy made in Germany. Zwischenergebnisse der E-Energy-Modellprojekte auf dem Weg zum Internet der Energie. B.A.U.M. Consult GmbH, München
BMWi (2014) Smart Energy made in Germany. Erkenntnisse zum Aufbau und zur Nutzung intelligenter Energiesysteme im Rahmen der Energiewende. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, Berlin
Orwat C (2011) Systemic risks in the electric power infrastructure? Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 20(3):47–55 Google Scholar
Vu K, Begouic M, Novosel D (1997) Grids get smart protection and control. Computer Applications in Power, IEEE 10(4):40–44 Article Google Scholar
Schick L, Gad C (2015) Flexible and inflexible energy engagements—a study of the Danish smart grid strategy. Energy Research & Social Science 9:51–59. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.013 Article Google Scholar
Schick L, Winthereik BR (2013) Innovating relations—or why smart grid is not too complex for the public. Science & Technology Studies 26(3):82–102 Google Scholar
Miller CA, Iles A, Jones C (2013) The social dimensions of energy transitions. Science as Culture 22(2):135–148 Article Google Scholar
BMU, BMWi (2011) The Federal Government’s energy concept of 2010 and the transformation of the energy system of 2011. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology and Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Munich Google Scholar
Talbot D (2012) The great German energy experiment. Technol Rev 115(4):50–55 Google Scholar
Büscher C, Sumpf P (2015) ‘Trust’ and ‘confidence’ as socio-technical problems in the transformation of energy systems. Energy, Sustainability and Society 5(1):34. doi:10.1186/s13705-015-0063-7 Article Google Scholar
Covrig CF, Ardelean M, Vasiljevska J et al (2014) Smart grid projects outlook 2014. EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg Google Scholar
Engels F, Münch AV (2015) The micro smart grid as a materialised imaginary within the German energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science 9:35–42. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.024 Article Google Scholar
Goulden M, Bedwell B, Rennick-Egglestone S et al (2014) Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management. Energy Research & Social Science 2:21–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.008 Article Google Scholar
Skjølsvold TM, Ryghaug M (2015) Embedding smart energy technology in built environments: a comparative study of four smart grid demonstration projects. Indoor and Built Environment 24(7):878–890. doi:10.1177/1420326X15596210 Article Google Scholar
Energy Supply Company (2013) Transcript of an expert interview with the head of an innovation group of one of the big German energy supply companies, quotations from the German-language transcript translated into English by the authors
Schneider C, Lösch A (2015) What about your futures, technology assessment? An essay on how to take the visions of TA seriously, motivated by the PACITA conference. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 24(2):70–74 Google Scholar