Environmental reform organizations and undone science in the United States: Exploring the environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology

Science as Culture

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 181-214

  Hess, David J ^a  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Health; Nanotechnology; Regulation; Risk; Social movements

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956181513     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430903183697     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology, in: E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (Eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 979-1000 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
2. Beck, U. (1992) The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
3. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity Press).
4. 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), pp. 309-325.
5. Berube, D. (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, pp. 23-37.
6. Bowman, D. and Hodge, G. (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nano-technology regulation, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 8, pp. 1-36.
7. City of Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory Commission (2008) Manufactured nanoparticle health and safety disclosure [draft document], in: E. Fisher, C. Selin and J. Wetmore (Eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, pp. 201-205 (New York: Springer).
8. Conroy, M. (2007) Branded! How the 'Certification Revolution' is Transforming Global Corporations (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers).
9. David, K. and Thompson, P. (Eds) (2008) What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience from the Debate over Agrifood Biotechnology and GMOs (New York: Elsevier/Academic Press).
10. Donaldson, K., Aitken, R., Tran, L., Stone, V., Duffin, R., Forrest, G. and Andrew, A. (2006) Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety, Toxicological Sciences, 92, pp. 5-22.
11. Einsiedel, E. and Goldenberg, L. (2004) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24(1), pp. 28-33.
12. Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
13. Feder, B. (2006) Study says US has lead in nanotechnology, The New York Times, 26 September, p. C6.
14. Fisher, E. and Mahajan, R. (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development, Science and Public Policy, 33(1), pp. 5-16.
15. Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Wetmore, J. (2008) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures (New York: Springer).
16. Frickel, S. (2004) Just science? Organizing scientist activism in the US environmental justice movement, Science as Culture, 13(4), pp. 449-469.
17. Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G. and Hess, D. (2010) Undone science: social movement challenges to dominant scientific agendas, Science, Technology, and Human Values, in press.
18. Frickel, S. and Moore, K. (Eds) (2006) The New Political Sociology of Science (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
19. Gross, M. (2007) The unknown in process: dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge, and related concepts, Current Sociology, 55(5), pp. 742-759.
20. Guston, D. and Sarewtiz, D. (2002) Real-time technology assessment, Technology in Society, 24(1-2), pp. 93-109.
21. Hardin, A. (2005) Nanotech chief sees no need to divert funds to environment, health studies, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 21 November, p. 6.
22. Helland, A., Wick, P., Koehler, A., Schmid, K. and Som, C. (2007) Reviewing the environmental and human health knowledge base of carbon nanotubes, Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(8), pp. 1125-1131.
23. Hess, D. (2005) Technology-and product-oriented movements: approximating social movement studies and STS, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30(4), pp. 515-535.
24. Hess, D. (2007) Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
25. Hess, D. (2009) The potentials and limitations of civil society research: getting undone science done, Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), pp. 306-327.
26. Hess, D. (2011) When nanotechnology meets solar energy: environmental social theory and problems of policy, in: K. Gould and B. Torres (Eds) Nanotechnology, Social Change, and the Environment, forthcoming (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).
27. Hodge, G. and Bowman, D. (2007) Engaging in small talk: nanotechnology policy and dialogue processes in the UK and Australia, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2), pp. 223-237.
28. Hodge, G., Bowman, D. and Ludlow, K. (Eds) (2007) New Global Frontiers of Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar).
29. Hoffmann-Riem, H. and Wynne, B. (2002) In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance, Nature, 416(14 March), p. 123.
30. Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
31. Joly, P. and Kaufmann, A. (2008) Lost in translation? The need for 'upstream engagement' with nanotechnology on trial, Science as Culture, 17(3), pp. 225-247.
32. Kahan, D., Brama, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, pp. 87-90.
33. Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., MacNaghten, P., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy, Science as Culture, 15(4), pp. 291-307.
34. Kinchy, A., Kleinman, D. and Autry, R. (2008) Against free markets, against science? Regulating the socio-economic effects of biotechnology, Rural Sociology, 73(2), pp. 147-179.
35. Kleinman, D. (Ed). (2000) Science, Technology, and Democracy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
36. Kleinman, D. and Kinchy, A. (2003) Why ban bovine growth hormone? Science, social welfare, and the divergent biotechnology policy landscapes in Europe and the United States, Science as Culture, 12(3), pp. 375-414.
37. Kleinman, D. and Kinchy, A. (2007) Against the neoliberal steamroller? The biosafety protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnology, Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), pp. 195-206.
38. Kleinman, D. and Vallas, S. (2001) Science, capitalism, and the rise of the 'knowledge worker': the changing structure of knowledge production in the United States, Theory and Society, 30, pp. 451-492.
39. Krupp, F. and Holliday, C. (2005) Let's get nanotech right, Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. B2.
40. Lam, C. W., James, J. T., McCluskey, R., Arepalli, S. and Hunter, R. (2006) A review of carbon nanotube toxicity and assessment of potential occupational and environmental health risks, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 36(3), pp. 189-217.
41. Marchant, G., Sylvester, D. and Abbott, K. (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology, NanoEthics, 2(1), pp. 43-60.
42. Mark, D. (Ed). (2004) Nanomaterials? A Risk to Health at Work? Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Occupational Health Implications of Nanomaterials (Buxton, UK: Health and Safety Laboratory).
43. McCray, W. (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future, History and Technology, 21(2), pp. 177-203.
44. Mehta, M. (2004) From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24(1), pp. 34-39.
45. Moore, K. (2008) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Political of the Military, 1945-1975 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
46. Moore, K., Kleinman, D., Hess, D. and Frickel, S. (2010) Science and neoliberal globalization: a political sociological approach, Theory and Society, under review.
47. National Research Council (2006) A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (Washington, DC: National Academies Press).
48. National Research Council (2008) Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (Washington, DC: National Academies Press).
49. Peter, D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2008) Awareness and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology: A Report of Findings Based on a National Survey Among Adults (Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars).
50. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2008) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, pp. 95-98.
51. Powell, M. and Kleinman, D. (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model, Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), pp. 329-348.
52. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2005) The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (Washington, DC: US Executive Office of the President).
53. Roco, M. C. (2004) Nanotechnology in the United States: research and development and risk governance, in: D. Mark (Ed) Nanomaterials? A Risk to Health at Work? First International Symposium on Occupational Health Implications of Nanomaterials, pp. 14-21 (Buxton, UK: Health and Safety Laboratory).
54. Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2007) Moving engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's Inquiry, Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), pp. 345-364.
55. Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2008) Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: 'upstream' toward sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(8-9), pp. 1010-1013.
56. Sandler, R. and Kay, W. D. (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science and Technology, 26(1), pp. 57-62.
57. Scheufele, D., Corley, E., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E. and Guston, D. (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public, Nature Nanotechnology, 2, pp. 732-734.
58. Schurman, R. (2004) Fighting frankenfoods: industry structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe, Social Problems, 51(2), pp. 243-268.
59. Service, R. F. (2005) EPA ponders voluntary nanotechnology regulations, Science, 309, p. 306.
60. Singh, S. and Nalwa, H. S. (2007) Nanotechnology and health safety: toxicity and risk assessments of nanostructured materials on human health, Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 7(9), pp. 3048-3070.
61. Thompson, P. (2008) Nano and bio: how are they alike? How are they different? in: K. David and P. Thompson (Eds) What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience from the Debate over Agrifood Biotechnology and GMOs, pp. 125-155 (New York: Elsevier/Academic Press).
62. Toumey, C. (2009) Hearts and minds and nanotechnology, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(March), pp. 136-137.
63. Toumey, C., Reynolds, J. and Aggelopoulou, A. (2006) Dialogue on nanotech: the South Carolina Citizens' School of Nanotechnology, Journal of Business Chemistry, 3(3), pp. 3-8.
64. Uhland, V. (2008) Slather, play, repeat, Natural Solutions, July/August, p. 31.
65. Weber, K., Thomas, L. and Hayagreeva, R. (2009) From streets to suites: how the anti-biotech movement affected German pharmaceutical firms, American Sociological Review, 74(1), pp. 106-128.
66. Weiss, R. (2004) EPA backs nanomaterial safety research: activists say $4 million is far too little for studies, The Washington Post, 12 November, p. A23.
67. Weiss, R. (2008) Groups petition EPA to ban nanosilver in consumer goods, The Washington Post, 2 May, p. A04.
68. Williams, R. (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: pitfalls in assessing high technology futures, Science as Culture, 15(4), pp. 327-348.
69. Wynne, B. (2007) Risky delusions: misunderstanding science and misperforming publics in the GE crops issue, in: I. Taylor (Ed) Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation, pp. 341-372 (New York: Haworth Food and Agricultural Products Press).