↓ Skip to main content

Safe-by-Design: from Safety to Responsibility

Overview of attention for article published in NanoEthics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 257)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
20 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Safe-by-Design: from Safety to Responsibility
Published in
NanoEthics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11569-017-0301-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ibo van de Poel, Zoë Robaey

Abstract

Safe-by-design (SbD) aims at addressing safety issues already during the R&D and design phases of new technologies. SbD has increasingly become popular in the last few years for addressing the risks of emerging technologies like nanotechnology and synthetic biology. We ask to what extent SbD approaches can deal with uncertainty, in particular with indeterminacy, i.e., the fact that the actual safety of a technology depends on the behavior of actors in the value chain like users and operators. We argue that while indeterminacy may be approached by designing out users as much as possible in attaining safety, this is often not a good strategy. It will not only make it more difficult to deal with unexpected risks; it also misses out on the resources that users (and others) can bring for achieving safety, and it is undemocratic. We argue that rather than directly designing for safety, it is better to design for the responsibility for safety, i.e., designers should think where the responsibility for safety is best situated and design technologies accordingly. We propose some heuristics that can be used in deciding how to share and distribute responsibility for safety through design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 16 11%
Other 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 44 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 10%
Engineering 11 7%
Environmental Science 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 45 30%
Unknown 54 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,396,879
of 25,364,603 outputs
Outputs from NanoEthics
#6
of 257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,634
of 325,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NanoEthics
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 257 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.