Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures

Science as Culture

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 327-348

  Williams, Robin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 74349083924     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430601022668     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Arnall, A. H., 2003. Future Technologies, Today's Choices. Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies, London:Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
2. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity, London:Sage.
3. Bennett, I., and Sarewitz, D., 2006. Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15 (4)
4. Bijker, W., 1993. Do not despair:there is life after constructivism. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18 (4):113–138.
5. Bloor, D., 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Brown, N., 2003. Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16 (2):3–21.
7. Collingridge, D., 1980. The Social Control of Technology, London:Frances Pinter.
8. Collingridge, D., 1992. The Management of Scale:Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big Mistakes, London and New York:Routledge.
9. Davenport, S., and Leith, S., 2005. Public participation:agoras, ancient and modern, and a framework for science–society debate. Science and Public Policy, 32 (2):137–153.
10. Department of Trade Industry. 2003. GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate, London:Department of Trade and Industry, DTI/Pub 6914/0.5 k/09/03/NP, URN 03/1292. Available at:http://www.dti.gov.uk
11. Douglas, M., 1986. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, London:Routledge.
12. Drexler, K. E., 1986. Engines of Creation:The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, New York:Anchor Books/Doubleday.
13. Drexler, K. E., Peterson, C., and Pergamit, G., 1991. Unbounding the Future:The Nanotechnology Revolution, New York:William Morrow and Company.
14. Evans, J., 2001. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Faulkner, W., Fleck, J., and Williams, R., 1998. “ Exploring expertise:issues and perspectives ”. In Exploring Expertise, Edited by:Williams, R., Faulkner, W., and Fleck, J., 1–27. Basingstoke:Macmillan.
16. Fisher, E., 2005. Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI):planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Programme. Technology in Society, 27 (3):321–328.
17. Fleck, J., Webster, J., and Williams, R., 1990. The dynamics of I.T. implementation:a reassessment of paradigms and trajectories of development. Futures, 22:618–640.
18. Fogelberg, H., and Glimell, H., 2003. Bringing Visibility to the Invisible:Towards a Social Understanding of Nanotechnology, Göteborg:Göteborg University. Available at:www.sts.gu.se/publications/sts_report_6.pdf
19. Gorman, M. E., 2002. Levels of expertise and trading zones:a framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32 (5–6):933–938.
20. Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., and Wynne, B., 2004. Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison, Lancaster:Lancaster University.
21. Guston, D. H., CRIs in the wilderness:toward centers for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. Theme paper for the 4th Triple Helix conference. November6–92002, Copenhagen. mimeo, appearing in modified version in Guston (2004)
22. Guston, D. H., 2004. “ CRIs in the wilderness:toward centers for responsible innovation in the commercialized academy ”. In Buying In or Selling Out:Essays in the Commercialization of the American Research University, Edited by:Stein, D., 161–174. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.
23. Guston, D. H., and Sarewitz, D., 2002. Real time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24:93–109.
24. Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledge:the science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14 (3):575–599.
25. Hathaway and Kyle. 2000. Large policy issues for small scale technology (Report prepared for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers & the National Science Foundation). Journal of Engineering and Public Policy, 4 Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (Washington, DC). Available at:http://www.wise-intern.org/journal00/khathaway2000.pdf (accessed 15 June 2006)
26. Hughes, T., 1983. Networks of Power, Baltimore, MD and London:Johns Hopkins University Press.
27. Krimsky, S., and Golding, D., 1992. Social Theories of Risk, Edited by:Krimsky, S., and Golding, D., London:Praeger.
28. Leydesdorff, L., and Etzkowitz, H., 2003. Can ‘the public’ be considered as a fourth helix in university–industry–government relations? Report of the Fourth Triple Helix conference. Science and Public Policy, 30 (1):55–61.
29. Lighthill, J., Artificial intelligence:a general survey, in:Science Research Council. Artificial Intelligence:A Paper symposium. London. Science Research Council. mimeo
30. López, J., 2004. Bridging the gaps:science fiction in nanotechnology. HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10 (2):129–152.
31. Luhmann, N., 1993. Risk:A Sociological Theory, Berlin:de Gruyter.
32. MacKenzie, D., 1998. “ The certainty trough ”. In Exploring Expertise, Edited by:Williams, R., Faulkner, W., and Fleck, J., 325–329. Basingstoke:Macmillan.
33. MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J., 1985. The Social Shaping of Technology:How the Refrigerator Got its Hum, Edited by:MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J., Milton Keynes:Open University Press.
34. McCain, L., 2002. Informing technology policy decisions:the US Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications programs as a critical case. Technology in Society, 24:111–132.
35. Mnyusiwalla, A. D., Abdallah, S., and Singer, P. A., 2003. ‘Mind the gap’:science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14:R9–R13.
36. Noble, D., 1979. “ Social choice in machine design:the case of automatically controlled machine tools ”. In Case Studies on the Labour Process, Edited by:Zimbalist, A., 18–50. New York:Monthly Review Press.
37. Office of Science and Technology. 2005. The Government's Outline Programme for Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies, London:HM Government. Available at:www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/programme12.pdf
38. Pinch, T., and Bijker, W., 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts:or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14 (3):399–441.
39. Radder, H., 1992. Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 22 (1):141–173.
40. Ratner, M., and Ratner, D., 2003. Nanotechnology:A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
41. Rip, A., There is mainstreaming, loss of critical distance:are STS scholars finally growing up?. Presentation to workshop ‘Does STS Mean Business Too?’. June292005, Oxford. Said Business School. mimeo, Available at:www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/downloads/sts2-rip.pdf (accessed 15 June 2006)
42. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J., 1995. Managing Technology in Society:The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, Edited by:Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J., London and New York:Pinter.
43. Rip, A., and Schot, J., 2002. “ Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development ”. In Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy:Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edited by:Sørensen, K. H., and Williams, R., 155–172. Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
44. Roco, M. C., and Bainbridge, W. S., 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Edited by:Roco, M. C., and Bainbridge, W. S., Boston:Kluwer Academic.
45. Roco, M. C., and Bainbridge, W. S., 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance:Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science (NBIC), Arlington, VA:National Science Foundation.
46. Roco, M. C., and Tomellini, R., 2002. Nanotechnology:Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications, Edited by:Roco, M. C., and Tomellini, R., Luxembourg:European Communities.
47. Rose, H., and Rose, S., 1976. The Radicalisation of Science, Edited by:Rose, H., and Rose, S., London:Macmillan.
48. Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies:Opportunities and Uncertainties, London:The Royal Society/The Royal Academy of Engineering.
49. Russell, S., and Williams, R., 2002a. “ Concepts, spaces and tools for action? Exploring the policy potential of the social shaping of technology perspective ”. In Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy:Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edited by:Sørensen, K. H., and Williams, R., 133–154. Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
50. Russell, S., and Williams, R., 2002b. “ Social shaping of technology:frameworks, findings and implications for policy, with glossary of social shaping concepts ”. In Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy:Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edited by:Knut, H. Sørensen, and Robin, Williams. 37–132. Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
51. Saari, E., and Miettinen, R., 2001. Dynamics of change in research work:constructing a new research area in a research group. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26 (3):300–321.
52. Sandler, R., and Kay, W. D., 2006. The GMO–nanotech (dis)analogy?. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26 (1):57–62.
53. Schot, J., 1992. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics:the case of clean technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17 (1):36–56.
54. Schummer, J., 2004. “ Bibliography of studies on nanoscience and nanotechnology ”. In Discovering the Nanoscale, Edited by:Baird, D., Nordmann, A., and Schummer, J., 311–316. Amsterdam:IOS Press.
55. Scientific American; The Editors. 2001. Megabucks for nanotech. Scientific American, 285 (3):8
56. Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science, 236 (17 April):280–285.
57. Society for Social Studies of Science. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). Paris. Public Proofs. Science, Technology and Democracy—Preuves Publiques. Science, technologie et démocratie, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Centre de Sociologie de l'innovation).
58. Sørensen, K. H., 2002. “ Social shaping on the move? On the policy relevance of the social shaping of technology perspective ”. In Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy:Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edited by:Sørensen, K. H., and Williams, R., 17–34. Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
59. Sørensen, K. H., 2004. Cultural politics of technology:combining critical and constructive interventions?. Science Technology & Human Values, 29:184–190.
60. Sørensen, K. H., and Williams, R., 2002. Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy:Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edited by:Sørensen, K. H., and Williams, R., Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
61. Spinardi, G., and Williams, R., 2005. “ The governance challenge of breakthrough science and technology ”. In New Modes of Governance:Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Edited by:Lyall, C., and Tait, J., 45–66. Aldershot:Ashgate.
62. Starr, C., 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165 (19 September):1232–1238.
63. Stewart, J., 2001. “ Encounters with the information society:personal and social issues in the appropriation of new media products in everyday life:adoption, non-adoption, and the role of the informal economy and local experts ”. unpublished PhD Thesis, Research Centre for Social Sciences, The University of Edinburgh
64. Stewart, J., and Williams, R., 2005. “ The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy:social learning and the user ”. In Critical Information Systems Handbook, Edited by:Howcroft, D., and Trauth, E. M., 194–221. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.
65. Stix, G., 1996. Waiting for breakthroughs. Scientific American, 274 (4):36
66. Stix, G., 2001. Little big science. Scientific American, 285 (3):94–99.
67. Tait, J., and Williams, R., 1999. Policy approaches to research and development:foresight, framework and competitiveness. Science and Public Policy, 26 (2):101–112.
68. UK Biobank. 2003. Ethics and Governance Framework, Stockport:UK Biobank. Available at:www.ukbiobank.ac.uk (accessed 24 September 2003)
69. van Lente, H., and Rip, A., 1998a. The rise of membrane technology:from rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science, 28 (2):221–254.
70. van Lente, H., and Rip, A., 1998b. “ Expectations in technological developments:an example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency ”. In Getting New Technologies Together:Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, Edited by:Disco, C., and van der Meulen, B., 203–229. New York:Walter de Gruyter.
71. Watson, J. D., 1989. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, 13Washington, DC:US Government Printing Office. US Congress, Senate Hearing 101–528, 9 November 1989
72. Weber, M., Hoogma, R., Lane, B., and Schot, J., 1999. Experimenting with Sustainable Transport Innovations. A Workbook for Strategic Niche Management, Seville/Enschede:University of Twente.
73. Williams, R., Stewart, J., and Slack, R., 2005. Social Learning and Technological Innovation:Experimenting with ICTs, Aldershot:Edward Elgar.
74. Winner, L., 1980. Do artefacts have politics?. Daedalus,:121–136.
75. Winner, L., 2003. Testimony to the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology House Committee on Science Hearings, Wednesday, 9 April 2003. Available at:http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/winner.htm (accessed 15 June 2006)
76. Wood, S., Jones, R., and Geldart, A., 2003. The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Swindon:Economic and Social Research Council.
77. Woodhouse, E., Hess, D., Breyman, S., and Martin, B., 2002. Science studies and activism:possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas. Social Studies of Science, 32 (2):297–319.
78. Woolgar, S., 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16 (1):20–50.
79. Wynne, B., 2001. Creating public alienation:expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10 (4):445–481.