Visions, Hype, and Expectations: A Place for Responsibility

Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 241-267

  Simakova, Elena ^a   Coenen, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Expectations; Hype; Nano futures; Responsibility; Responsible (research and) innovation (RRI); Technology assessment (TA); Visions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886344717     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118551424.ch13     Document Type: Chapter

References (96)

1. Appelbaum, R. and Parker, R. (2008) China's bid to become a global nanotech leader: advancing nanotechnology through state-led programs and international collaborations, Science and Public Policy, 35 (5): 319-334.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin. C., and Guston, D. (2008) Anticipatory governance in nanotechnology, (eds. Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M.E., et al.). in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press. 979-1000.
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): 309-325.
4. Boenink M, Swierstra T, and Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies Ethics Law and Technology 4(2), doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1098.
5. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K. and Van Lente, H. (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 3/4, 285-298.
6. Bowker, G. and, Leigh Star, S. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, MIT Press.
7. Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15: 3-18.
8. Canton, J. (2001) The strategic impact of nanotechnology on the future of business and economics. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Final Report from the Workshop held at the National Science Foundation, September 28-29, 2000, pp. 91-97.
9. Coenen, C. (2010a) Deliberating visions: the case of human enhancement in the discourse on nanotechnology and convergence. (eds. Kaiser, M.; Kurath, M.; Maasen, S.; Rehmann-Sutter, C.), in Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, pp. 73-87.
10. Coenen, C. (2010b) ETC group, (ed. Guston, D.) in Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society, Sage Publications, p. 218.
11. Corral, G.H. (2011) Stand up against the anti-technology terrorists, 476, 373. doi: 10.1038/476373a
12. Doubleday, R. (2007) The laboratory revisited: academic science and the responsible governance of nanotechnology, NanoEthics, 1(2): 167-176.
13. de Ridder-Vignone, K.D. and Lynch, M. (2012) "Images and Imaginations: An Exploration of Nanotechnology Image Galleries." Leonardo 45(5): 447-454. http://muse.jhu.edu/(accessed January 17, 2013).
14. Drexler, K.E. (1987) Engines of Creation. Doubleday.
15. Eigler, D.M. and Schweizer E.K. (1990) Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunnelling microscope, Nature 344, 524-526.
16. European Commission, Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research and Council Conclusions on Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-apr09_en.pdf (accessed 30 August 2012).
17. Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Limoges, C., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society, London: Sage Publications.
18. Gieryn, Th. (1998) Social Boundaries of Science, The University of Chicago Press.
19. Grunwald, A. 2005. Nanotechnology: a new field of ethical inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2): 187-201.
20. Grunwald, A. (2009) Technology assessment-concepts and methods (ed. A., Meijers): Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences in Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9. Amsterdam, Boston, MA, Heidelberg, London, New York, Elsevier, 1103-1146.
21. Grunwald A. (2010): From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology, NanoEthics 4:91-101.
22. Grunwald, A. (2011) Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9-31.
23. Grunwald, A. (2012) Responsible nanobiotechnology: philosophy and ethics. Singapur: Pan Stanford Publ.
24. Guston, D. (2007) Toward centres for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy, (eds. P.W.B. Phillips and J. Porter), 295-312. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
25. Guston, D. and Keniston, K. (eds.) (1994) The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government, MIT Press.
26. Guston, D. and Sarewitz, D. (2002) Real-time technology assessment, Technology in Society 24 (2002) 93-109.
27. Hadden, S. (ed.) (1989) Assessing Molecular and Aqtomic Scale Technologies (MAST) (Special project report), Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas at Austin, in association with Futuretrends.
28. Hanson, V. (2011) Envisioning ethical nanotechnology: the rhetorical role of visions in postponing societal and ethical implications Research, Science as Culture, 20(1): 1-36.
29. Hilgartner, S. (2007) Making the bioeconomy measurable: politics of an emerging anticipatory machinery, BioSocieties 2 (3): 382-386.
30. Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance, Social Studies of Science; 36; 299-320.
31. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
32. Jasanoff S., and Kim S.-H. (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea, Minerva 47: 119-146.
33. Jones, D (1995) Technical boundless optimism, Nature, 374, 6525, 835-837.
34. Joy, B. (2000) Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. Wired (Apr. 2000) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html (accessed 30 August 2012).
35. Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., Rehmann-Sutter, Chr. Hrsg. (2010) Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
36. Kearnes, M. and Macnaghten, P. (2006) Introduction: (Re) imagining nanotechnology, Science as Culture, 15(4), 279-290.
37. Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., and Brian Wynne (2008) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy, Science as Culture 15(4): 291-307.
38. Kulkarni, RP (2007), Case study: Nano-Bio-Genesis: tracing the rise of nanotechnology and nanobiotechnology as 'big science', Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration 2:3. doi: 10.1186/1747-5333-2-3
39. Kurath, M. (2009) Nanotechnology governance: accountability and democracy in new modes of regulation and deliberation, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 5 (2), 87-110.
40. Lopez, J. J. and Lunau, J. (2012) ELSIfication in Canada: legal modes of reasoning, Science as Culture, 21(1), 77-99.
41. Lösch, A. (2010) Visual Dynamics: The Defuturization of the Popular 'Nano-Discourse' as an Effect of Increasing Economization (eds. Kaiser, M.; Kurath, M.; Maasen, S.; Rehmann-Sutter, C.), Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, Springer: 89-108.
42. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B. and Wynne, B. (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27: 268-91.
43. Mali, F., Pustovrh, T., Groboljsek, B. and Coenen, C. (2012) National ethics advisory bodies in the emerging landscape of responsible research and innovation, Nanoethics, 6, 3: 167-184.
44. McCarthy, E. and Kelty, C. (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnology, Social Studies of Science, 40: 405-432.
45. McGoey, L. (2012) Strategic unknowns: towards a sociology of ignorance, Economy and Society, 41(1): 1-16.
46. Mody, C. (2004) How probe microscopists became nanotechnologists, in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press: 119-133.
47. Nordmann, A. (2004) Molecular disjunctions: staking claims at the nanoscale, (eds Baird, D., Nordmann, A. and Schummer, J.) in Discovering the Nanoscale, IOS Press, Amsterdam: 51-62.
48. Nordmann, A. (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics, NanoEthics 1:31-46.
49. Nordmann, A., and Rip, A. (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4:273-274.
50. Nordmann A, and Schwarz A (2010) Lure of the 'Yes': the seductive power of technoscience. (eds Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C) in Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 255-277.
51. Nowotny, H. (2007) How many policy rooms are there?: Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies. Science Technology Human Values, 32, 479-490.
52. Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760, doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093).
53. Paschen, H., Coenen, C., Fleischer, T., Grünwald, R., Oertel, D. and Revermann, C. (2004), Nanotechnologie: Forschung und Anwendungen, Berlin: Springer.
54. Philips, L. (2012) Nanotechnology: armed resistance, Nature 576 (488): 30.
55. Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, (eds Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T.): in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology: 17-50, MIT Press.
56. President Clinton's Address to Caltech on Science and Technology (2000) The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Los Angeles, California for Immediate Release January 21, 2000.
57. Regis, E. (1995) Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the World Molecule by Molecule. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
58. Rip, A. (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists, Science as Culture, 15(4): 349-365.
59. Rip, A. and Voß, J.-P. (2009) Umbrella terms in the governance of emerging science and technology. Presented at the Spring Session 2009 'The Governance of Future Technologies' of the Working Group 'Politics, Science and Technology'.
60. Roco, M. (2007a) National nanotechnology initiative-past, present, future, in Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, 2nd edn, Taylor & Francis: 3.1-3.26.
61. Roco, M. (2007b) A One-to-One with Mike Roco. Courtesy: The National Nanotechnology Initiative, Purdue University, http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/dls/NNI/Mihailroco.html (accessed 1 September 2012).
62. Roco, M. (2009) Nanotechnology at NSF, presentation at the 2009 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference, December 7-9, 2009, http://www.nseresearch.org/2009/presentations/Day1_Roco.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).
63. Roco, M. and Bainbridge W.S. (eds.) (2001) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, National Science Foundation, Available online http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).
64. Roco, M. C., Bainbridge, W. S. (eds.) (2002) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf (accessed 21 August 2012).
65. Roco, M. C., Tomellini, R. (eds.) (2002): Nanotechnology-Revolutionary Opportunities and Social Implications. 3rd Joint EC-NSF Workshop on Nanotechnology, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, http://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_lecce_proceedings_05062002.pdf (accessed September 3 2012).
66. Roco, M.C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., and Shapira, P. (2011) Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development, (eds Roco, M.C., Mirkin, C.A., Hersam, M.C.) Nanotechnology Research Directions for Social Needs in 2020. 1st edn. Springer. pp. 561-617.
67. Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.
68. Schummer, J. (2010) From nano-convergence to NBIC-convergence: 'The best way to predict the future is to create it'. (eds. Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., and Rehmann-Sutter, C.) in Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer pp. 57-71.
69. Schwarz, A. (2008) Green nanotechnology-new challenge or business as usual? Paper presented at Conference NanoECO, Centro Stefano Franscini, Monte Verità.
70. Selin, C. (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Science, Technology and Human Values 32 (2): 196-220.
71. Shapin, S. (2008) The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Shew, A. (2008), Nanotech's history: an interesting, interdisciplinary, ideological split, Bulletin of Science Technology Society; 28; 390-399.
73. Siegel, R.W. (1998) Chapter 1: Introduction and overview, in (eds Siegel, R.W., E. Hu, and M.C. Roco) Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study. WTEC Panel Report on Nanostructure Science and Technology: R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevices. Prepared under the guidance of the IWGN, NSTC, WTEC, Loyola College in Maryland, http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/html/iwgn/IWGN.Research.Directions/toc.html (accessed 13 November 2011).
74. Simakova, E. (2011) Collaboration talk: the folk theories of nano research, Science as Culture, 21 (2): 177-203.
75. Simakova, E. (2012), Making nano matter: an inquiry into the discourses of governable science, Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(6): 604-626.
76. Smalley, R. (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots, Scientific American, 285, 76-77.
77. Smalley, R. (2003a) Smalley responds. Chemical and Engineering News, 81, 39-40.
78. Smalley, R. (2003b) Smalley concludes. Chemical and Engineering News, 81, 41-42.
79. Stix, G. (1996): Trends in nanotechnology: waiting for breakthroughs. Scientific American 270: 94-99.
80. Swierstra, T. and A. Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology, NanoEthics 1:3-20.
81. Taniguchi, N. (1974) On the basic concept of Nano-technology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Production Engineering. Tokyo, Part II, Japan Society of Precision Engineering.
82. Te Kulve, H. (2006) Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15(4), 367-382.
83. Thurs, D. (2007a) No longer academic: models of commercialization and the construction of a nanotech industry, Science as Culture, 16:2, 169-186.
84. Thurs, D. (2007b) Tiny tech, transcendent tech: nanotechnology, science fiction, and the limits of modern science talk, Science Communication 29: 65-95.
85. Toumey, C. (2004) Nano hyperbole and lessons from earlier technologies, Nanotechnology Law and Society, 1(4).
86. U.S. Congress, Senate (1993) New Technologies for a Sustainable World: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, June 26, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
87. Von Schomberg, R. (2012) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation, (eds Dusseldorp, M. and Beecroft, R.) Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, Springer VS.
88. Webster, A. (2007a) Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458-478.
89. Webster, A. (2007b) Reflections on reflexive engagement: Response to Nowotny and Wynne. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 608-615.
90. Williams, R. (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Science as Culture, 15, 327-348.
91. Wilsdon J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science. Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, DEMOS,.
92. 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.
93. Woolgar, S. and Coopmans, C. (2006) Virtual witnessing in a virtual age: a prospectus for social studies of E-science in New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science, Chapter 1 (ed. C. Hine, 1-25. Hershey: Idea Group Inc.
94. Wullweber, J. (2008) Nanotechnology-an empty signifier à venir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical innovation strategy, Science Technology and Innovation Studies 4 (1), 27-45.
95. Wyatt, S. (2004) Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology and the internet, Science, Technology and Human Values 29(2), 242-261.
96. Wyne, B. (2007) Dazzled by the mirage of influence?: STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science Technology Human Values, 32, 491-503.