Narratives for nanotech: Anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology

Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 383-411

  Toumey, Christopher P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS;

CASE-STUDIES; PUBLIC AWARENESS; RECOMBINANT DNA; RELIABLE MODELS; SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 34748822067     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1142/9789812773975_0018     Document Type: Chapter

References (90)

1. Altmann, J.: 2004, ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns’, Security Dialogue, 35 (1), 61-79.
2. Amato, I.: 1999, Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom, National Science & Technology Council, Washington, D.C.
3. Arnall, A.: 2003, Future Technologies, Today’s Choices, Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London.
4. Bainbridge, W.S.: 2002, ‘Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology’, Journal ofNanoparticle Research, 4, 561-570.
5. Bainbridge, W.S.: 2004, ‘Sociocultural Meanings of Nanotechnology: Research Methodologies’, Journal ofNanoparticle Research, 6, 285-299.
6. Baro, A.M.; Binnig, G.; Rohrer, H.; Gerber, C; Stoll, E.; Baratoff, A.& Salvan, F.: 1984, ‘Real-Space Observation of the 2 X 1 Structure of Chemisorbed Oxygen on Ni(110) by Scanning Tunneling Microscopy’, Physical Review Letters, 52 (15), 1304-07.
7. Bennett, W. & Gurin, J.: 1977, ‘Science That Frightens Scientists: The Great Debate over DNA’, Atlantic Monthly, (February), 43-62.
8. Binnig, G. & Rohrer, H.: 1985, ‘The Scanning Tunneling Microscope’, Scientific American, (August), 50-56.
9. Binnig, G. & Rohrer, H.: 1986, ‘Scanning Tunneling Microscopy’, IBM J. Res. Develop., 30 (4), 355-369.
10. Broadhead, L. & Howard, S.: 2003, ‘The Heart of Darkness’, Resurgence, no. 221 (November-December) [http://resurgence.gn.apc.org, accessed 4 Nov. 2003].
11. Brown, D.: 2001, ‘Drexler Warns Terror Symposium: Nanotech Has ‘Extreme Downsides", Smalltimes, (19 December) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2002].
12. Brown, D.: 2002a, ‘U.S. Regulators Want to Know Whether Nanotech Can Pollute’, Smalltimes, (15 March) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2002].
13. Brown, D.: 2002b, ‘Nanolitterbugs? Experts See Potential Pollution Problems’, Smalltimes, (15 March) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2002].
14. Brown, D.: 2002c, ‘Activists: No More Nanomaterials Until We Know Whether It Pollutes’, Smalltimes, (8 August) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2003].
15. Budrys, A.: 1977, ‘The Politics of Deoxyribonucleic Acid’, New Republic, (16 April), 18-21.
16. Burnell, S.R.: 2002, ‘Scientists Say a Nanomaterial Moratorium Would Be a Bad Idea’, Smalltimes, (12 September) [www.smalltimes.org, accessed 15 Nov. 2003].
17. Collins, G.P.: 2001, ‘Shamans of Small’, Scientific American, (September), 86-91.
18. Crandell, B.C. (ed.): 1996, Nanotechnology: Molecular Speculations on Global Abundance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Crawford, M.: 1989, ‘Utah Looks to Congress for Cold Fusion Cash’, Science, 244, 522-23.
20. Crichton, M.: 2002, Prey, HarperCollins, New York.
21. Drexler, K.E.: 1986, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor, Garden City, NY.
22. Drexler, K.E.: 2001, ‘Machine-Phase Nanotechnology’, Scientific American, (September), 74-75.
23. ETC Group: 2002, ‘Nanotech Takes a Giant Step Down’, News Release, 6 March [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
24. ETC Group: 2003a, ‘Green Goo: Nanotechnology Comes Alive!', Communique no. 77 (January/February) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
25. ETC Group: 2003b, ‘The Little BANG Theory’, Communique no. 78 (March/April) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
26. ETC Group: 2003c, ‘No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium. Size Matters!', Occasional Paper Series, 7 (1, April) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
27. ETC Group: 2003d, ‘Size Matters!', Press Release, 14 April [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
28. ETC Group: 2003e, ‘No Small Matter! Nanoparticles Penetrate Living Cells and Accumulate in Animal Organs’, Communique (May/June) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
29. ETC Group: 2003f, ‘Nanotech Un-gooed!', Communique no. 80 (September/October) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
30. ETC Group: 2003g, ‘Much Ado About Nothing?', Communique no. 81 (September/October) [www.ETCgroup.org, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
31. [The] Economist: 2002, ‘Trouble in Nanoland’, The Economist, (7 December), 75-76.
32. Eigner, D.M. & Schweizer, E.K.: 1990, ‘Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunneling Microscope’, Nature, 344 (5 April), 524-526.
33. Feder, B.J.: 2002, ‘Nanotechnology Has Arrived; A Serious Opposition Is Forming’, New York Times, (3 August), C3.
34. Feder, B.J.: 2003a, ‘Research Shows Hazards in Tiny Particles’, New York Times, (14 April), C8.
35. Feder, B.J.: 2003b, ‘As Uses Grow, Tiny Materials’ Safety Is Hard to Pin Down’, New York Times, (3 November), C1 & C4.
36. Feynman, R. 1992 [1959], ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 1 (1), 60-66.
37. Feynman, R.: 1993 [1983], ‘Infinitesimal Machinery’, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems,! (1), 4-14.
38. Goonan, K.A.: 1994, Queen City Jazz, Tor, New York.
39. Goonan, K.A.: 1997, Mississippi Blues, Tor, New York.
40. Goonan, K.A.: 2000, Crescent City Rhapsody, Avon Eros, New York.
41. Grobstein, C: 1977, ‘The Recombinant-DNA Debate’, Scientific American, (July), 22-33.
42. Hayles, K. (ed.): 2004, Nanoculture: Implications of a New Technology, Intellect Books, Bristol.
43. Heylin, M.: 1989, ‘Sociology of Cold Fusion Examined’, Chemical & Engineering News, (19 March), 24-25.
44. Huizenga, J.R.: 1992, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.
45. Joy, B.: 2000, ‘Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us’, Wired, (April), 238-262.
46. Joy, B.: 2001, ‘Forfeiting the Future’, Resurgence, 208 (September-October).
47. Keiper, A.: 2003, "The Nanotechnology Revolution’, The New Atlantis, (Summer), 17-34.
48. King, J.: 1977, ‘A Science for the People’, New Scientist, (16 June), 634-636.
49. Krimsky, S.: 1982, Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
50. Lerner, I.: 2003, ‘Nanotechnology Faces Recent Problems in Public Image’, Chemical Market Reporter, (19 May), 10.
51. Locke, S.: 1992, ‘The Use of Scientific Discourse by Creation Scientists: Some Preliminary Findings’, Public Understanding of Science, 3, 403-424.
52. Locke, S.: 1997, Constructing the ‘Beginning’: Discourses of Creation Science, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
53. Malinowski, B.: 1948, Magic, Science, and Religion, and Other Essays, Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, NY.
54. McKibben, B.: 2003, Enough, Henry Holt, New York.
55. Miksanek, T.: 2001, ‘Microscopic Doctors and Molecular Black Bags: Science Fiction’s Prescription for Nanotechnology and Medicine’, Literature and Medicine, 20 (1), 55-70.
56. Milburn, C: 2002, ‘Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science’, Configurations, 10, 261-295.
57. Mills, L.: 2003, ‘Brave New Science Might Change the World - Or, Some Say, End It’, Sunday Telegraph, (20 June).
58. Mirsky, S.: 2000, ‘Tantalizing Tubes’, Scientific American, (June), 40-42.
59. NSTC [National Science and Technology Council]: 2000, National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan, National Science & Technology Council, Washington, DC.
60. Nader, C: 1986, ‘Technology and Democratic Control: The Case of Recombinant DNA’, in: R.A. Zilinskas & B.K. Zimmerman (eds.), The Gene-Splicing Wars, Macmillan, New York, pp. 139-165.
61. Nelkin, D.: 1987, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, Freeman, New York.
62. NOVA: 1989, ‘ConFusion in a Jar’ (transcript of NOVA program of 30 April 1990), BBC-TV and WGBH-Boston, Boston, MA.
63. Peat, F.D.: 1989, Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy, Contemporary Books, Chicago.
64. Pool, R.: 1989, ‘How Cold Fusion Happened -Twice!', Science, 244, 420-423.
65. Radford, T.: 2003, ‘Brave New World or Miniature Menace? Why Charles Fears Grey Goo Nightmare’, The Guardian, (29 April) [www.guardian.co.uk, accessed 13 Nov. 2003].
66. Ratner, M. & Ratner, D.: 2003, Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
67. Reed, M.A. & Tour, J.M.: 2000, ‘Computing with Molecules’, Scientific American, (June), 86-93.
68. Rennie, J.: 2000, ‘Nanotech Reality’, Scientific American, (June), 8.
69. Rifkin, J.: 1977, ‘DNA’, Mother Jones, (February/March).
70. Roco, M.C. & Bainbridge, W.S.: 2001, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
71. Roco, M.C. & Bainbridge: 2002, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, National Science Foundation.
72. Rosenberg, C: 1966, ‘Science and American Social Thought’, in: D.D. Van Tassel & M.G. Hall (eds.), Science and Society in the United States, Dorsey, Homewood, IL, pp. 135-162.
73. Shermer, M.: 2001, ‘Nano Nonsense and Cryonics’, Scientific American, (September), 29.
74. Singer, M.: 1977, ‘Scientists & the Control of Science’, New Scientist, (16 June), 631-634.
75. Smalley, R.E.: 2001, ‘Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots’, Scientific American, (September), 68-69.
76. Smith, J. & Wakeford, T.: 2003, ‘Who’s in Control?', The Ecologist, 33 (4), 40-41.
77. Stix, G.: 1996, ‘Waiting for Breakthroughs’, Scientific American, (April), 94-99.
78. Stix, G.: 2001, ‘Little Big Science’, Scientific American, (September), 26-31.
79. Stuart, C: 2002, ‘Nano Should Regulate Itself Before the Government Does, Report Says’, Smalltimes, (20 November) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2003].
80. Stuart, C: 2003a, ‘Watchdogs Say Stop Nanotech, Start Worldwide Dialogue’, Smalltimes, (31 January) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2003].
81. Stuart, C: 2003b, ‘Survey Finds the Smaller the Size, the Bigger the Possible Risks’, Smalltimes, (17 April) [www.smalltimes.com, accessed 15 Nov. 2003].
82. Taubes, G.: 1992, Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of ColdFusion, Random House, New York.
83. Tenner, E.: 2001, ‘Nanotechnology and Unintended Consequences’, in: M.C. Roco & W.S. Bainbridge (eds.), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 311-318.
84. Thomas, J.: 2003, ‘Future Perfect?', The Ecologist, (May), 32-35.
85. Thompson, P.B.: 2001, ‘Social Acceptance of Nanotechnology’, in: M.C. Roco & W.S. Bainbridge (eds.), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 251-256.
86. Tourney, C: 1996a, Conjuring Science, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
87. Tourney, C: 1996b, ‘Conjuring Science in the Case of Cold Fusion’, Public Understanding of Science, 5, 121-133.
88. Tourney, C: 1997, ‘Conjuring Medical Science’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 11 (4), 477-497.
89. Wade, N.: 1977, ‘Recombinant DNA: NIH Rules Broken in Insulin Gene Project’, Science, 197, 1342-45.
90. Wade, N.: 1978, ‘Harvard Gene Splicer Told to Halt’, Science, 199 (8 January), 31.