Do we need a specific kind of technoscience assessment? Taking the convergence of science and technology seriously

Poiesis und Praxis

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 37-54

  Kastenhofer, Karen ^a  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952323376     PISSN: 16156609     EISSN: 16156617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10202-010-0077-3     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Aebersold R, Hood LE, Watts JD (2000) Equipping scientists for the new biology. Nat Biotech 18: 359.
2. Beckert B, Blümel C, Friedewald M (2007) Visions and realities in converging technologies: exploring the technology base for convergence. Innov Eur J Soc Sci 20(4): 375-394.
3. Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research by Vannevar Bush, Director of the office of scientific research and development, July 1945. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
4. Coenen C (2008) Konvergierende Technologien und Wissenschaften. Der Stand der Debatte und politischen Aktivitäten zu "Converging Technologies". TAB-Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag, Berlin.
5. Dupuy J-P (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. J Med Philosophy 32: 237-261.
6. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (eds) (1997) Universities and the global knowledge economy. A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Pinter, London.
7. Fiedeler U (2008) Technology assessment of nanotechnology: problems and methods in assessing emerging technologies. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) Excavating futures of nanotechnology. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Springer, New York, pp 241-263.
8. Forman P (2007) The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. Hist Technol 23(1/2): 1-152.
9. Gill B (1994) Die Vorverlegung der Folgenerkenntnis Science Assessment als Selbstreflexion der Wissenschaft. Soziale Welt 45(4): 430-454.
10. Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4): 380-392.
11. Hacking I (1983) Representing and intervening. Cambridge University Press, New York.
12. (™). Routledge, New York.
13. Hoyningen-Huene P (1989) Naturbegriff-Wissensideal-Experiment. Warum ist die neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft technisch verwertbar? Z Wissenschaftsforschung 5: 43-55.
14. Jacob F (1988) The statue within. An Autobiography. Basic Books, New York.
15. Kastenhofer K (2007) Converging epistemic cultures? A discussion drawing on empirical findings. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 20(4): 359-373.
16. Knorr Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
17. Lacey H (2005) Values and objectivity in science. Lexington Books, Lanham.
18. Latour B (1983) Give me a laboratory and I raise the world. In: Knorr-Cetina K, Mulkay M (eds) Science observed-perspectives on the social studies of science. SAGE, London, pp 141-170.
19. Latour B (1987) Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
20. Lösch A (2009) 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. Springer, New York, pp 89-108.
21. Nahuis R, van Lente H (2008) Where are the politics? Perspectives on democracy and technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(5): 559-581.
22. Nordmann A (2004) Was ist TechnoWissenschaft?-Zum Wandel der Wissenschaftskultur am Beispiel von Nanoforschung und Bionik. In: Rossmann T, Tropea C (eds) Bionik: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse in Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, pp 209-218.
23. Nordmann A (2006) Collapse of distance: epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Dan Yearb Philosophy 41: 7-34.
24. Oeser E (1988) Das Abenteuer kollektiver Vernunft: Evolution und Involution der Wissenschaft. Parey, Berlin.
25. Oeser E (2004) The evolution of scientific method. In: Wuketits FM, Antweiler C (eds) Handbook of evolution, vol 1: the evolution of human societies and cultures. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 149-184.
26. Pickering A (ed) (1992) Science as practice and culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
27. Price DdS (1963) Little science, big science. Columbia University Press, New York.
28. Rheinberger H-J (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things. Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
29. Rip A (1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8(2): 349-371.
30. Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4): 349-365.
31. Rip A, Voß J-P (2009) Umbrella terms in the governance of emerging science and technology: bridging the tension between relevance and scientific advance. Paper presented at: Governance von Zukunftstechnologien, Tagung des AK "Politik und Technik" der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (22. 5. 2009), Technische Universität Berlin.
32. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. NSET Workshop Report. National Science Foundation, Arlington.
33. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. NSF/DOC-sponsored report. National Science Foundation, Arlington.
34. Saretzki T (1999) TA als diskursiver Prozeß. In: Bröchler S, Simonis G, Sundermann K (eds) Handbuch Technikfolgenabschätzung. Sigma, Berlin, pp 641-653.
35. Schummer J (2006) Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. Interdiscip Sci Rev 31(3): 217-230.
36. Schummer J (2009) From nano-convergence to NBIC-convergence: "the best way to predict the future is to create it". In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, New York, pp 57-71.
37. Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Human Values 32(2): 196-220.
38. Shiva V (1993) Monocultures of the mind. Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Zed Books, London.
39. Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur's quadrant. basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington/DC.
40. Torgersen H (2009) Fuzzy genes: epistemic tensions in genomics. Sci Cult 18(1): 65-87.
41. Weber J (2006) From science and technology to feminist technoscience. In: Davis K, Evans M, Lorber J (eds) Handbook of gender and women's studies. SAGE, London, pp 397-414.
42. Williams R (2008) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) Excavating futures of nanotechnology. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Springer, New York, pp 265-289.
43. Wright GH (1974) Erklären und Verstehen. Athenäum, Frankfurt.
44. Wullweber J (2008) Nanotechnology-an empty Signifier à venir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical innovation strategy. Sci Technol Innov Stud 4(1): 27-45.