Scenarios of nanotechnology innovation vis-à-vis sustainability challenges

Futures

Volumn 64, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-14

  Foley, Rider W ^a,b   Wiek, Arnim ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anticipation; Governance; Nanotechnology; Responsible innovation; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

ENTREPRENEUR; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INNOVATION; LOW INCOME POPULATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SERVICE SECTOR; SUSTAINABILITY; URBAN REGION;

ARIZONA; PHOENIX; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908152777     PISSN: 00163287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.09.005     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Alic J. Trillions for military technology: How the pentagon innovates and why it costs so much 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
2. Almirall E., Casadesus-Masanell R. Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review 2010, 35:27-47.
3. Arizona Climate Change Action Group Final Arizona Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projects: Appendix D: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and reference case projections 1990-2020. Report 2006, Arizona Climate Change Action Group, Phoenix.
4. Arizona Department of Administration Arizona's workforce employment rate - Employment & population statistics 2011, Arizona Department of Administration, Phoenix, Retrieved from http://www.workforce.az.gov/pubs/labor/PrNov11.pdf.
5. Arora S., Foley R.W., Youtie J., Shapira P., Wiek A. Drivers of technology adoption-The case of nanomaterials in building construction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2014, 87:232-244.
6. Avnimelech G., Feldman M.P. Regional corporate spawning and the role of homegrown companies. Review of Policy Research 2010, 27:475-489.
7. Balogh B. Chain reaction: Expert debate and public participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 1991, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
8. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D.H. Anticipatory governance in nanotechnology. The handbook of science and technology studies 2008, 979-1000. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. third ed. E. Hackett (Ed.).
9. Bennett I. Developing plausible nano-enabled products. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society 2008, Vol. 1:149-156. Springer, New York.
10. Societal entrepreneurship: Positioning, penetrating, promoting 2012, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. K. Berglund, B. Johannisson, B.B. Schwatz (Eds.).
11. Boettiger S., Wright B.D. Case discussion: CAMBIA-BIOS open source in biotechnology: Open questions. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 2006, 1:45-57.
12. Bolin B., Grineski S., Collins T.T. The geography of despair: Environmental racism and the making of South Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Human Ecology Review 2005, 12:156-168.
13. Bosso C., DeLeo R.A., Kay W.D. Reinventing oversight in the twenty-first century: The question of capacity. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2011, 13:1435-1448.
14. Brown S. The new deficit model. Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4:609-611.
15. Bureau of Labor Statistics Databases, tables, and calculators by subject 2011, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington DC, Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov.
16. Bush V. Science the endless frontier, A report to the President, July 1945 1945, National Science Foundation, Washington DC, Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm.
17. Center for Nanotechnology in Society Nanotechnology in city environments database 2014, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe, Available at http://nice.asu.edu.
18. Centers for Disease Control The obesity epidemic and Arizona students. What is the problem? What are the solutions? What is the status? 2010, Center for Disease Control, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/obesity/az_obesity_combo.pdf.
19. Courvisanos J. Cycles, crises and innovation: Path to sustainable development - A Kaleckian-Schumpeterian synthesis 2012, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
20. Cozzens S.E. Building equity and equality into nanotechnology. Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development 2011, 433-446. Springer, London. S.E. Cozzens, J.M. Wetmore (Eds.).
21. Cozzens S.E., Wetmore J.M. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume II: Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality, and development 2011, Springer, New York.
22. Crouch C.C. Community food resource assessment in central city south, Phoenix: A study of community capacity building 2011, (Thesis), School of Sustainability, Arizona State University.
23. Crow M.M. Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. BioScience 2010, 60:488-489.
24. Cutts B.B., Darby K.J., Boone C.G., Brewis A. City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. Social Science and Medicine 2009, 69:1314-1322.
25. Delgado A., Kjolberg K.L., Wickson F. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 2011, 20:826-845.
26. Etzkowitz H. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: A case of transformation of norms. Social Problems 1989, 36:14-29.
27. Federal Highway Administration Travel time and departure time - Census transportation planning products 2011, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/journey_to_work/jtw3.cfm#tra.
28. Feldman M. University transfer and the system of innovation. Institutions and systems in the geography of innovation 2002, 55-78. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. M. Feldman, M. Nadine (Eds.).
29. Fernández-Ribas A. Public support to private innovation in multi-level governance systems: An empirical investigation. Science and Public Policy 2009, 36:457-467.
30. Foley R.W., Wiek A. Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technology in Society 2013, 35:233-247.
31. Foley R.W., Wiek A., Bernstein M. Scenario narratives and workshop report. Report, R13-0001 2013, Center for Nanotechnology in Society.
32. Foley R.W., Petrucci D., Wiek A. Imagining the future city. Issues of Science & Technology Fall 2014, 80-90.
33. Gammage G. Watering the sun corridor: Managing choices in Arizona's megapolitan area. Policy report 2011, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Retrieved from http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2011-watering-the-sun-corridor-managing-choices-in-arizonas-megapolitan-area.
34. Geels F.W. Towards sociotechnical scenarios and reflexive anticipation: Using patterns and regularities in technology dynamics. Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools 2002, 359-385. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. K.H. Sorensen, R. Williams (Eds.).
35. Geels F.W., Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 2007, 36:399-417.
36. Gibson R.B. Sustainability assessment: Basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2006, 24:170-182.
37. Gober P., Trapido-Lurie B. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community in the desert 2006, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
38. Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Key industries - Emerging technologies, Retrieved from . http://www.gpec.org/key-industries/emerging-tech.
39. Grieger K.D., Baun A., Owen R. Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2010, 12:383-392.
40. Grieger K.D., Wickson F., Andersen H.B., Renn O. Improving risk governance of emerging technologies through public engagement: The neglected case of nano-remediation?. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2012, 10:61-78.
41. Grimm N.B., Faeth S.H., Golubiewski N.E., Redman C.L., Wu J., Bai X., et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319:756-760.
42. Guston D.H. Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 2008, 454:5-6.
43. Guston D.H. Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Social Studies of Science 2013, 10.1177/0306312713508669.
44. Gutkind L. You can't make this stuff up: The complete guide to writing creative nonfiction-From memoir to literary journalism and everything in between 2012, Da Capo Press, Boston.
45. Hart B., Hager C.J.E. Dropped? Latino education and Arizona's economic future 2012, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Phoenix, Retrieved from http://www.pipertrust.org/wp-content/uploads/_my_publications_pdf/4847-a8027bf2.pdf.
46. Heal G. Nature and the marketplace capturing the value of ecosystem services 2000, Island Press, Washington, DC.
47. Henig C. Real-estate boom-bust: Lessons learned. Phoenix Business Journal 2010, March:3-4.
48. Karn B.P., Bergeson L. Green nanotechnology: Straddling promise and uncertainty. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 2009, 24:9-13.
49. Kemp R., Rotmans J. Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Political Science 2009, 42:303-322.
50. Kemp R., Parto S., Gibson R.B. Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development 2005, 8:12-30.
51. Kuhlmann S., Edler J. Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe: Investigating future governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2003, 70:619-637.
52. Kuiken T., Pauwels E. Beyond the lab and far away: Immediate and future challenges in governing the bio-economy. Presentation. First annual conference of governance of emerging technologies: Law, policy and ethics 2013.
53. Larson K.L., Gustafson A., Hirt P. Insatiable thirst and a finite supply: An assessment of municipal water-conservation policy in greater Phoenix. Journal of Policy History 2009, 21:107-137.
54. Lathey V. The impact of suburban neighborhood design and development patterns on public health 2008, (Dissertation), School of Geography and Urban Planning, Arizona State University.
55. Lathey V., Guhathakurta S., Aggarwal R.M. The impact of subregional variations in urban sprawl on the prevalence of obesity and related morbidity. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2009, 29:127-141.
56. Machler L., Golub A. Using a sustainable solution space approach to develop a vision of sustainable accessibility in a low-income community in Phoenix, Arizona. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2012, 6:298-319.
57. Nanotechnology and global sustainability 2012, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. D. Maclurcan, N.N. Radywyl (Eds.).
58. Mahrer E. APS renewable energy overview. Greenhouse gas, renewable energy, green building and sustainability seminar. Presentation 2011, September 28, Arizona State University - Polytechnic Campus, Mesa, AZ.
59. Maricopa Association of Governments Methodologies for evaluating congestion mitigation and air quality improvement projects. Report 2011, Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix.
60. Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget Maricopa County Economic and Fiscal Issues. Report 2009, Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix.
61. McGregor J., Wetmore J.M. Researching and teaching the ethics of social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. Nanoethics 2009, 3:17-30.
62. Morrison Institute for Public Policy Five shoes waiting to drop on Arizona's future 2011, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Phoenix, Retrieved from http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu.
63. Mulgan G., Steinberg T., Salem O. Wide open: Open source methods and their future potential 2005, Demos, London.
64. Paull R., Wolfe J., Hébert P., Sinkula M. Investing in nanotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 2003, 21:1144-1147.
65. Philbrick M. An anticipatory governance approach to carbon nanotubes. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:1708-1722.
66. Porter M.E. The competitive advantage of nations 1990, The Free Press, New York.
67. Putnam R.D. E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 2007, 30:137-174.
68. Rawls J. Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1985, 14:223-251.
69. Renn O., Roco M.C. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2006, 8:153-191.
70. Rip A., Shelley-Egan C. Positions and responsibilities in the 'real' world of nanotechnology. Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies options for framing public policy 2010, 31-38. European Union, Luxemburg. R. von Schomberg, S. Davies (Eds.).
71. Robinson D.K.R. Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2009, 76:1222-1239.
72. Roco M.C., Harthorn B., Guston D.H., Shapira P. Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2011, 13:3557-3590.
73. Rosenberg N., Nelson R.R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 1994, 23:323-348.
74. Ross A. Bird on fire: Lessons from the world's least sustainable city 2011, Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
75. Rothwell J., Lobo J., Strumsky D., Muro M. Patenting prosperity: Invention and economic performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas 2013, Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC.
76. Sampat B. Universities and intellectual property: Shaping a new patent policy for government funded academic research. Shaping science and technology policy: The next generation of research 2005, 55-76. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison. D.H. Guston, D. Sarewitz (Eds.).
77. Sarewitz D., Pielke R. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10:5-16.
78. Shapira P. Innovation and small and midsize enterprises. The theory and practice of innovation policy 2012, 169-193. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. J. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, P. Shapira (Eds.).
79. Shapira P., Youtie J., Kay L. National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer 2011, 36:587-604.
80. Smith G.B., Granqvist C.G. Green nanotechnology solutions for sustainability and energy in the built environment 2011, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
81. Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 2013, 42:1568-1580.
82. Talbot K. A participatory, transformational approach to urban food security research 2012, (Thesis), School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe.
83. te Kulve H., Rip A. Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 2011, 17:671-699.
84. Tietje O. Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. European Journal of Operational Research 2005, 162:418-432.
85. von Hippel E. The sources of innovation 1988, Oxford University Press, New York.
86. von Schomberg R. A vision of responsible innovation. Responsible innovation 2013, John Wiley, London. R. Owen, M. Heintz, J. Bessant (Eds.).
87. Wagner M. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and sustainability 2012, Greenleaf Press, Sheffield, UK.
88. Wender B.A., Foley R.W., Seager T.P., Guston D.H., Wiek A. Anticipatory governance and anticipatory life cycle assessment of single wall carbon nanotube anode lithium ion batteries. Journal of Nanotechnology Law & Business 2012, 9:201-216.
89. Wiek A., Foley R.W. CNS systematic analysis workshop: Urban sustainability syndromes. Report #R11-0001 2011, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe.
90. Wiek A., Foley R.W. CNS systematic analysis workshop: Urban nanoscape - Nanotechnology expert panel: Urban nanoscape review. Report #R11-0002 2011, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe.
91. Wiek A., Larson K.L. Water, people, and sustainability-A systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resource Management 2012, 26:3153-3171.
92. Wiek A., Binder C., Scholz R.W. Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 2006, 38:740-766.
93. Wiek A., Lang D., Siegrist M. Qualitative system analysis as a means for sustainable governance of emerging technologies: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008, 16:988-999.
94. Wiek A., Gasser L., Siegrist M. Systemic scenarios of nanotechnology - Sustainable governance of emerging technologies. Futures 2009, 41:284-300.
95. Wiek A., Foley R.W., Guston D.H. Nanotechnology for sustainability - What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems?. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2012, 14:1093.
96. Wiek A., Guston D.H., van der Leeuw S., Selin C., Shapira P. Nanotechnology in the city: Sustainability challenges and anticipatory governance. Journal of Urban Technology 2013, 20:45-62.
97. Wiek A., Keeler L.W., Schweizer V., Lang D. Plausibility indications in future scenarios. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 2013, 9:133-147.
98. Yasunaga Y., Watanabe M., Korenaga M. Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2009, 76:61-79.
99. Youtie J., Shapira P. Metropolitan development of nanotechnology: Concentration or dispersion. Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol. II: The challenges of equity, equality, and development 2011, 165-180. Springer, New York. S. Cozzens, J.M. Wetmore (Eds.).