The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within
Abstract
Public “upstream engagement” and other approaches to the social control of technology are currently receiving international attention in policy discourses around emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. To the extent that such approaches hold implications for research and development (R&D) activities, the distinct participation of scientists and engineers is required. The capacity of technoscientists to broaden the influences on R&D activities, however, implies that they conduct R&D differently. This article discusses the possibility for more reflexive participation by scientists and engineers in the internal governance of technology development. It reviews various historical attempts to govern technoscience and introduces the concept of midstream modulation, through which scientists and engineers, ideally in concert with others, bring societal considerations to bear on their work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,767
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
The Making of the English Working Class.
Smelser, N. J., & Thompson, E. P. (1966) · History and Theory · doi:10.2307/2504519 · Cited by 4,317
Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-0914 · Cited by 3,829
Gummett, P. (1988) · Physics Bulletin · doi:10.1088/0031-9112/39/8/019 · Cited by 2,974
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987) · Cited by 2,957
Kitcher, P. (2001) · doi:10.1093/0195145836.001.0001 · Cited by 1,531
Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4464 · Cited by 1,489
The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution
Snow, C. P., & Smoluchowski, R. (1961) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3057748 · Cited by 1,479
Issues in Science and Technology
(2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/892 · Cited by 1,419
Cited by
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184
Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology
Delgado, A., Lein Kjølberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2011) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510363054 · Cited by 284
Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment
Kiran, A. H., Oudshoorn, N., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2015) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.992769 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C.
- Venue
- Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 485-496
- ISSN
- 0270-4676 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4183
- OpenAlex
- W2099152065
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 21.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0270467606295402
- The paper
- Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467606295402
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.