Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 72-85

  Fisher, E ^a   Maricle, G ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NGO with Special Consultative Status with United Nations Economic and Social Council   (France)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Research priority setting; Responsible innovation; Socio technical integration

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRODUCTIVITY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84928951368     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scu017     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. Alario, M. (2000) 'Science, ethics and policy responses to the "organized irresponsibility"', Democracy and Nature, 6: 187-97.
2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. (2008) 'Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration'. In: Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn, pp. 979-1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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: 309-26.
4. Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Boenink, M. (2013) 'The multiple practices of doing 'ethics in the laboratory': A mid-level perspective'. In: Van der Burg, S. and Swierstra, T. (eds) Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, pp. 57-78. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
6. Bronk, DW (1975) 'The National Science Foundation: Origins, Hopes and Aspirations', Science, 188/4187: 409-14.
7. Brush, S. G. (1974) 'Should the history of science be rated X', Science, 183/4130: 1164-72.
8. Bush, V. (1945) Science, the Endless Frontier. National Science Foundation Report to President Roosevelt. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific Research and Development.
9. Byerly, R., Jr and Pielke, R., Jr (1995) 'The changing ecology of United States science', Science, 269: 1531-2.
10. Calvert, J. (2006) 'What's special about basic research?' Science, Technology, and Human Values, 31: 199-220.
11. Cobb, M. (2011) 'Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13: 1533-48.
12. Collingridge, D. (1980) The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin's Press.
13. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L. and Wickson, F. (2011) 'Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology', Public Understanding of Science, 20: 826-45.
14. Department of Trade and Industry. (2004) 'Nanotechnology offers potential to bring jobs, investment, and prosperity -Lord David Sainsbury', Department of Trade and Industry Press Release, 29 July 2004.
15. Doubleday, R. (2007) 'The laboratory revisited', NanoEthics, 1: 167-76.
16. Doubleday, R. and Viseu, A. (2010) 'Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science'. In: Doubleday, R. and Viseu, A. (eds) Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technologies, pp. 55-84. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.
17. 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: 321-8.
18. Fisher, E. (2007) 'Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions', NanoEthics, 1: 155-65.
19. Fisher, E. (2014), Invited testimony. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Sixteenth meeting. Washington, D.C. February 11.
20. Fisher, E., Biggs, S., Lindsay, S. and Zhao, J. (2010) 'Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences', Nature, 463/7248: 1018.
21. 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: 5-16.
22. Fisher, E. and Mahajan, R. and Mitcham, C. (2006) 'Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within', Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26: 485-96.
23. Fisher, E. and Rip, A. (2013) 'Responsible innovation: multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices', Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, pp. 165-83.
24. Fisher, E. and Schuurbiers, D. (2013) 'Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development', Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory, pp. 97-110. Springer Netherlands.
25. Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A. and Osseweijer, P. (2012) 'Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is "part of the job" of researchers in industry', Science and Engineering Ethics, 19: 1-24.
26. Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A. and Osseweijer, P. (2013) 'Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, accessed 26 January 2014.
27. Freeman, C. (1995) 'The "National System of Innovation" in historical perspective', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19: 5-24.
28. Frodeman, R. and Briggle, A. (2012) 'The dedisciplining of peer review', Minerva, 50: 3-19.
29. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1995) 'Science for the post normal age'. In: Westra, L. and Lemons, J. (eds) Perspectives on Ecological Integrity, pp. 146-61. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Gallo, J. (2009) 'The discursive and operational foundations of the national nanotechnology initiative in the history of the National Science Foundation', Perspectives on Science, 17: 174-211.
31. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R. and Doubleday, R. (2007) 'Democratic technologies?: The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG)'. London: Involve Foundation.
32. Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F. and Shrager, J. (2004) 'Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot study'. In: Baird, D., Nordmann, A. and Schummer, J. (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 63-77. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
33. Guston, D. H. (2000) 'Retiring the social contract for science', Issues in Science and Technology, 16/4: 32-6.
34. Guston, D. H. (2010) 'Public engagement with nanotechnology', Blog post on 2020 Science. 30 March 2010 accessed 26 January 2014.
35. Guston, D. H. (2011) 'Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment', Science and Engineering Ethics, 17/4: 691-7.
36. Guston, D. H. (2013a)) 'Introduction to the special issue: Nanotechnology and Political Science', Review of Policy Research, 30: 439-46.
37. Guston, D. H. (2013b)) 'Understanding "anticipatory governance"', Social Studies of Science, 0306312713508669.
38. Guston, D. H. and Sarewitz, D. (2002) 'Real-time technology assessment', Technology in Society, 24: 93-109.
39. Herr Harthorn, B., McCray, W. P. and Satterfield, T. (2006) 'Anthropological research at the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society', Practicing Anthropology, 28/2: 38-40.
40. Holbrook, J. B. and Hrotic, S. (2013) 'Blue skies, impacts, and peer review.' RT. A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation, 1/1: DOI: 10.13130/2282-5398/2914.
41. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000) Science and Society. London: House of Lords.
42. House of Representatives Committee on Science. (2003), Report 108-89. S. Boehlert, US House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: House of Representatives.
43. Irwin, A. (2006) 'The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance', Social Studies of Science, 36: 299-320.
44. Jasanoff, S. (1991) 'What judges should know about the sociology of science', Jurimetrics, 32: 345-59.
45. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
46. Jones, R. (2008) 'When it pays to ask the public', Nature Nanotechnology, 3: 578-9.
47. Juengst, E. (1996) 'Self-critical federal science? The ethics experiment within the U.S. Human Genome Project', Social Philosophy and Policy, 13/2: 63-95.
48. Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. (2004) 'The reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems: The example of German biotechnology', Research Policy, 33: 395-408.
49. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wilsdon, J. (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies, and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.
50. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2005) 'Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?', Science Communication, 27: 268-91.
51. Lasswell, H. D. (1956) 'The political science of science: An inquiry into the possible reconciliation of mastery and freedom', American Political Science Review, 50: 961-79.
52. Lasswell, H. D. (1971) A Pre-view of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
53. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Lemos, M. C. and Morehouse, B. J. (2005) 'The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments', Global Environmental Change, 15: 57-68.
55. Leshner, Alan I. (2005) 'Where science meets society', Science, 307.5711: 815.
56. Lubchenco, J. (1998) 'Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science', Science, 279/5350: 491-7.
57. McCain, L. (2002) 'Informing technology policy decisions: The US Human Genome Project's ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case', Technology in Society, 24: 111-32.
58. McCray, W. P. (2005) 'Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future', History and Technology, 21: 177-203.
59. MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
60. 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.
61. Marburger, J. (2003) 'Opening address at Workshop on Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology', held at National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA accessed 24 February 2005.
62. Marburger, J. (2011) 'Why policy implementation needs a science of science policy'. In: Husbands Fealing, K., Lane, J. I., Marburger, J. H., III and Shipp, S. S. (eds) The Science of Science Policy: A Handbook, pp. 9-22. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
63. National Research Council. (2002) Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
64. National Research Council (2014) Science of Science and Innovation Policy Principal Investigators' Conference: Summary, Kaye Husbands Fealing, Alexandra S. Beatty, and Constance F. Citro, Rapporteurs. pp. 46-47.
65. Neal, H. A., Smith, T. L. and McCormick, J. B. (2011) 'The process of making science policy'. In: Neal, H. A., Smith, T. L. and McCormick, J. B. (eds) Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century, pp. 52-71. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
66. Nelson, R. R. (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: OUP.
67. Nowotny, H. (1990) 'Individual autonomy and autonomy of science: The place of the individual in the research system'. In: Cozzens, S., Healey, P. and Ziman, J. (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 331-43. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
68. Nowotny, H. (2003) 'Democratizing expertise and socially robust knowledge', Science and Public Policy, 30: 151-6.
69. Nowotny, H. (2007) 'How many policy rooms are there? Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies', Science, Technology, and Human Values, 32: 479-90.
70. NSF. (2006), Program Solicitation for "Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems (ANN)." Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06595/nsf06595.htm accessed 18 March 2014.
71. O'Rourke, M. and Crowley, S. J. (2013) 'Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project', Synthese, 190: 1937-54.
72. Owen, R. (2014) 'The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's commitment to a framework for responsible innovation', Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1/1: 113-7.
73. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012) 'Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society', Science and Public Policy, 39: 751-60.
74. Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. (2000) 'National systems of innovation under strain: The internationalization of corporate R&D'. In: Barrel, R., Mason, G. and O'Mahony, M. (eds) Productivity, Innovation and Economic Performance, pp. 1-25. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
75. Pellizzoni, L. (2004) 'Responsibility and environmental governance', Environmental Politics, 13: 541-65.
76. Petts, J. (2008) 'Public engagement to build trust: False hopes?' Journal of Risk Research, 11: 821-35.
77. Pielke, R. A., Jr (2005) 'The role of science studies in science policy', Bridges, 8, Published December 2005. accessed 17 March 2014.
78. Pielke, R. A., Jr (2012) 'Basic research as a political symbol', Minerva, 50: 339-61.
79. Pielke, R. A., Jr and Byerly, R., Jr (1998) 'Beyond basic and applied', Physics Today, 51/2: 42-6.
80. Polanyi, M. (2000) 'The republic of science: Its political and economic theory', Minerva, 38/1: 1-21.
81. Public Law 108-153. (2003) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, 117 STAT. 1923.
82. Rabinow, P. and Stavrianakis, A. (2013) Demands of the Day: On the Logic of Anthropological Inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
83. Rayner, S. (2004) 'The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult?', Industry and Higher Education, 18: 349-55.
84. Ribes, D. and Bowker, G. C. (2009) 'Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the knowledge of communities', Information and Organization, 19: 199-217.
85. Rip, A. (2009) 'Futures of ELSA', EMBO reports, 10: 666-70.
86. Rip, A. and van der Meulen, B. J. R. (1996) 'The post-modern research system', Science and Public Policy, 23: 343-52.
87. Rip, A. and van Lente, H. (2013) 'Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch nano-R&D Program NanoNed', NanoEthics, 7: 7-16.
88. Roco, M. C. and Bainbridge, W. S. (2001) Societal Implications of Nanocience and Nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
89. Roberts, M. R. (2009) 'Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion', Social Epistemology, 23: 199-219.
90. Rodrí{dotless} guez, H., Fisher, E. and Schuurbiers, D. (2013) 'Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations', Research Policy, 42: 1126-37.
91. Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunitiesand Uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
92. Royal Society. (2005) 'Government commits to regulating nanotechnologies but will it deliver?', press release dated 25 February 2005. London: Royal Society.
93. Sarewitz, D. (2010 [1996]) Frontiers of illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
94. Sarewitz, D. (2009) 'Where responsibility lies', Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes accessed 26 January 2014.
95. Sarewitz, D. and Woodhouse, E. (2003) 'Small is powerful'. In: Lightman, A., Sarewitz, D. and Desser, C. (eds) Living With the Genie, pp. 63-83. Washington DC: Island Press.
96. Schuurbiers, D. (2011) 'What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory', Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 769-788.
97. Shapira, P., Youtie, J. and Kay, L. (2011) 'National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation', Journal of Technology Transfer, 36: 587-604.
98. Shilton, K. (2013) 'Values levers building ethics into design', Science, Technology, and Human Values, 38: 374-97.
99. Stilgoe, J. (2007) Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement in Science. London: Demos.
100. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013) 'Developing a framework for responsible innovation', Research Policy, 42: 1568-80.
101. Stirling, A. (2008) '"Opening up" and "closing down" power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology', Science, Technology & Human Values, 33: 262-94.
102. Stokes, D. E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
103. Taebi, B., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M. and Pesch, U. (2014) 'Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research', Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1/1: 118-24.
104. Van Oudheusden, M. (2011) 'Questioning 'participation': a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment, Science and engineering ethics, 17: 673-90.
105. van der Most, Frank (2009), Research councils facing new science and technology the case of nanotechnology in Finland, The Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, Ph.D. dissertation. Netherlands: University of Twente accessed 18 March 2014.
106. Viseu, A. and Maguire, H. (2012) 'Integrating and enacting 'social and ethical issues' in nanotechnology practices', NanoEthics, 6: 195-209.
107. Von Schomberg, R. (2011) 'Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation'. In: Dusseldorp, M. and Beecroft, R. (eds) Technikfolgen abschäatzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, pp. 39-61. Berlin: Springer.
108. Von Schomberg, R. (2013) 'A vision of responsible research and innovation'. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, pp. 51-74. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
109. Voss, J. P., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (eds) (2006) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
110. Webster, A. (2007) 'Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room', Science, Technology, and Human Values, 32: 458-78.
111. Weinberg, A. (1971) 'The axiology of science', American Scientist, 58: 612-7.
112. Wiek, A., Guston, D., Frow, E. and Calvert, J. (2012) 'Sustainability and anticipatory governance in synthetic biology', International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 3/2: 25-38.
113. Williams, R. and Edge, D. (1996) 'The social shaping of technology', Research Policy, 25: 865-99.
114. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. (2005) The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure That Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
115. Winner, L. (1980) 'Do artifacts have politics?' Daedalus, 109: 121-36.
116. Winner, L. (2003) 'Testimony to the Committee on Science of the US House of Representatives on the Societal Implication of Nanotechnology', 9 April 2003 accessed 17 March 2014.
117. Wynne, B. (2002) 'Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out?', Current sociology, 50: 459-77.
118. Wynne, B. (2005) 'Risk as globalizing 'democratic'discourse? Framing subjects and citizens'. In: Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds) Science and Citizens, pp. 66-82. London: ZED Books.
119. Wynne, B. (2006) 'Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?', Community Genetics, 9: 211-20.
120. Wynne, B. (2011) 'Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes', Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 791-800.