The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 595-611

  Shapira, Philip ^a,b   Youtie, Jan ^b   Porter, Alan L ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c Search Technology Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Scientometrics; Societal implications

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956920071     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0204-x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Arnall, A. H. (2003). Future technologies, today's choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
2. Bachmann, G. (1998). Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos. Technologieanalyse. Düsseldorf: VDI-Technologiezentrum.
3. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561-570.
4. Baum, R. (2003). Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers'. Chemical and Engineering News, 81(48), 37-42.
5. Bennett, I., & Sarewitz, D. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15(4), 309-325.
6. Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351-374.
7. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321-325.
8. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132-161). Ondon: Routledge.
9. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.
10. Crichton, M. (2002). Prey. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
11. Darby, M. R., & Zucker, L. G. (2003). Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology (NBER working paper no. 9825). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
12. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147-162.
13. Drexler, E. K. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
14. Feynman, R. P. (1960). There's plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science, 23(5), 22-36.
15. Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technology in Society, 27(3), 321-328.
16. Freitas, R. (1999). Nanomedicine, Volume I: Basic capabilities. Georgetown, TX: Landes Bioscience.
17. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Allum, N. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285(5426), 384-387.
18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
19. Hicks, D. (2005). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative social science and technology research (pp. 473-496). Netherlands: Springer.
20. Hullmann, A. (2008). European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology. DG Research, Brussels: European Commission.
21. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507-527.
22. Joint Economic Committee. (2007). Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington, DC: United States Congress.
23. Jones, R. (2004). SoftMachines: Nanotechnology and life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn't need us: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies-robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech-are threatening to make humans an endangered species. Wired, 8 (4).
25. Kostoff, R., Murday, J., Lau, C. G., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(2), 193-213.
26. Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. London: Viking.
27. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248.
28. Lewenstein, B. (2004). What counts as a "social and ethical issue" in nanotechnology? International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5-18.
29. Leydesdorff, L., Cozzens, S. E., & van Den Besselaar, P. (1994). Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings. Research Policy, 23, 217-229.
30. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348-362.
31. Lux Research. (2007). The nanotech report (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research Inc.
32. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268-291.
33. MacOubrie, J. (2002). Logical argument structures in decision-making. Argumentation: An International Journal of Reasoning, 17, 291-313.
34. Malsch, I. (1997). Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' perceptions and scientific relations between sub-areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
35. Marshall, E. (1996). The genome program's conscience. Science New Series, 274(5287), 488-490.
36. Meyer, M. (1998). Nanotechnology: interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42, 195-205.
37. Meyer, M. (2006). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Paper presented at the 2006 technology transfer society conference, Atlanta, Georgia, September 27-29.
38. Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2003). Mind the gap: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14, R3-R13.
39. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
40. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330.
41. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.
42. Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies-shaping the future of European societies. Brussels: European Commission.
43. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373.
44. Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3-4), 161-176.
45. Porter, A. L., Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2008). The cognitive geography of nanotechnologies: Locating nano-research in the map of science. Paper Presented at the NBER conference on nanotechnology and nanoindicators, Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1-2, 2008.
46. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009a). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023-1041.
47. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009b). Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature-Nanotechnology, 4, 534-536.
48. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. (2008b). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715-728.
49. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2008). The national nanotechnology initiative: Second assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Washington DC.
50. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2009). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics (Online).
51. Renn, O., & Roco, M. (2006). Nanotechnology risk governance. IRGC white paper no. 2. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.
52. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.
53. Roco, M. C. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5-6), 353-360.
54. Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181-189.
55. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
56. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2002a). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Integrating from the nanoscale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4(4), 281-295.
57. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2002b). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.
58. Roco, M. C., & Tomellini, R. (eds.). (2002). Nanotechnology: Revolutionary opportunities and societal implications. 3rd joint EC-NSF workshop on nanotechnology. DG Research, Luxembourg: European Commission.
59. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Royal Society. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
61. Schmidt, K. (2006). Nanofrontiers: Visions for the future of nanotechnology. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
62. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidiciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425-465.
63. Scitech Strategies Inc. (2008). Maps of science. http://mapofscience. com. Accessed December 28, 2008.
64. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2010). United States. In D. Guston & J. G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of nanotechnology and society. New York: Sage Publications.
65. Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T. D., & Lozano, K. (2005). Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns. Technology in Society, 27(3), 329-345.
66. Siegel, R. W., Hu, E., & Roco, M. C. (1999). Nanostructure science and technology: A worldwide study. WTEC panel report. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.
67. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.
68. Smalley, R. E. (2001). Of chemistry, love and nanobots. Scientific America, 285(3), 76-77.
69. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004). Science-technology connections and Interactions. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S& T systems (pp. 695-715). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
70. Uldrich, J. (with Newbury, D.) (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Crown Business, New York.
71. Whiteside, G. (2001). The once and future nanomachine. Scientific America, 285(3), 78-83.
72. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
73. Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
74. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008a). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 315-329.
75. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008b). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981-986.
76. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U. S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290-306.