Caring for nanotechnology? Being an integrated social scientist

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 642-664

  Viseu, Ana ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSIDADE EUROPEIA   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

Author keywords

feminist technoscience; governance; integration; knowledge politics; matters of care; nanotechnology; responsible development; science policy

Indexed keywords

EMPATHY; ETHICS; FEMINISM; NANOTECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; SOCIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EMPATHY; FEMINISM; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SOCIAL SCIENCES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84945123487     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312715598666     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. S.Aguiton (2012) Etre embarquée dans une competition de biologie synthétique. In: Sciences Sociales Embarquées’ Colloque International, Paris, 13–14 January. Paris: CETCOPRA, Université Paris 1 and CSI, Mines ParisTech.
2. P.ArmstrongH.Armstrong (2002) Thinking it through: Women, work and caring in the new millennium. Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers De La Femme21(4): 44–50.
3. A.BalmerK.BulpinJ.CalvertM.KearnesA.MackenzieC.Marris. (2012) Towards a manifesto for experimental collaborations between social and natural scientists. Experimental Collaborations. Available at: https://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com/ (accessed 29 November 2012).
4. A.BarryG.BornG.Weszkalnys (2008) Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society37(1): 20–49.
5. C.B.Brettell (ed.) (1993) When They Read What We Write: The Politics of Ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
6. M.Callon (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay. In: J.Law (ed.) Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?. London; Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–233.
7. J.CalvertP.Martin (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports10(3): 201–204.
8. Cornell Nanofabrication Facility (CNF) (2003) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network Proposal: Submitted to NSF in response to NSF 03–519.
9. P.Doing (2008) Give me a laboratory and I will raise a discipline: The past, present, and future politics of laboratory studies in STS. In: E.J.HackettO.AmsterdamskaM.LynchJ.Wajcman (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 279–298.
10. R.DoubledayA.Viseu (2010) Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science? In: K.L.KjølbergF.Wickson (eds) Nano Meets Macro: Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing, 55–84.
11. European Commission (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/nanotechnology_communication_en.pdf (accessed 30 March 2009).
12. European Commission (2014) Horizon 2020 in Brief: The EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-brief-eu-framework-programme-research-innovation (accessed 12 March 2015).
13. E.Fisher (2005) Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society27(3): 321–328.
14. D.E.Forsythe (2001) Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15. B.Fox (ed.) (1980) Hidden in the Household: Women’s Domestic Labour Under Capitalism. Toronto, ON, Canada: Women’s Educational Press.
16. E.Fox Keller (1987) The gender/science system: Or, is sex to gender as nature is to science?Hypatia2(3): 37–49.
17. F.Gannon (2009) Convergence. EMBO Reports10(2): 103.
18. M.Gibbons (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature402: C81–C84.
19. M.GibbonsC.LimogesH.NowotnyS.SchwartzmanP.ScottM.Trow (eds) (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. M.E.Gorman (2011) Doing science, technology and society in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics17(4): 839–849.
21. D.H.Guston (2010) Societal dimensions research in the national nanotechnology initiative. CSPO report 10–02. Tempe, AZ: Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes and Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University. Available at: http://cspo.org/legacy/library/100701F7WL_lib_CSPOReportGuston.pdf (accessed 17 November 2010).
22. E.J.HackettD.R.Rhoten (2011) Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics17(4): 823–838.
23. D.Haraway (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
24. D.Haraway (2007) When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
25. D.Haraway (2010) When species meet: Staying with the trouble. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space28(1): 53–55.
26. S.Harding (1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: ‘What is strong objectivity’? In: L.AlcoffE.Potter (eds) Feminist Epistemologies, Thinking Gender. New York: Routledge, 49–82.
27. P.Hill Collins (1986) Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems33(6): S14–S32.
28. R.Hubbard (1988) Science, facts, and feminism. Hypatia3(1): 5–17.
29. S.Jasanoff (2005) Designs on Nature Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ; Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
30. S.Jasanoff (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics17(4): 621–638.
31. P.-B.JolyA.Kaufmann (2008) Lost in translation? The need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture17(3): 225–247.
32. R.KarinenD.H.Guston (2010) Toward anticipatory governance: The experience with nanotechnology. In: M.KaiserM.KurathS.MaasenC.Rehmann-Sutter (eds) Governing Future Technologies Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Dordrecht; New York: Springer, 217–232.
33. L.E.Kay (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34. Knight Laboratory (2013) Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology Facility (CNF): Laboratory Usage & Safety Manual. Cornell University. Available at: http://www.cnf.cornell.edu/doc/CNF_Lab_Manual_10th_edition.pdf (accessed 10 April 2013).
35. B.Latour (1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology (trans. C Porter). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. B.Latour (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30(2): 225–248.
37. B.LatourS.Woolgar (1986 [1979]) Laboratory Life the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. B.V.Lewenstein (2005) What counts as a ‘social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology?HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry11(1): 5–18.
39. S.Lindee (1994) The ELSI hypothesis. Isis85(2): 293–296.
40. M.Lynch (2000) Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society17(3): 26–54.
41. L.McCain (2002) Informing technology policy decisions: The US human genome project’s ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case. American Perspectives on Science and Technology Policy24(1–2): 111–132.
42. A.MolI.MoserJ.Pols (eds) (2010) Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Bielefeld; Piscataway, NJ: Transcript-Verlag.
43. M.Murphy (2015) Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social Studies of Science45(5): 717–737.
44. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (n.d.) NNI Visions, Goals and Objectives. Available at: http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/vision-goals (accessed 10 November 2005).
45. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2003) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN): Program Solicitation. Arlington, VA: NSF. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03519/nsf03519.pdf (accessed 18 June 2007).
46. A.Nordmann (2007) Knots and strands: An argument for productive disillusionment. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy32(3): 217–236.
47. H.NowotnyP.ScottM.Gibbons (2001) Re-thinking Science Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
48. N.OudshoornT.J.Pinch (eds) (2005) How Users Matter the Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. th Congress. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ153/pdf/PLAW-108publ153.pdf (accessed 12 June 2008).
50. M.Puig de la Bellacasa (2011) Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science41(1): 85–106.
51. P.RabinowG.Bennett (2012) Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press.
52. A.Rip (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture15(4): 349–365.
53. A.Rip (2009) Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports10(7): 666–670.
54. M.C.RocoW.S.Bainbridge (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. NSET Workshop report, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf (accessed 7 February 2004).
55. D.Schuurbiers (2011) What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics17(4): 769–788.
56. D.SchuurbiersE.Fisher (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports10(5): 424–427.
57. P.ShapiraJ.YoutieA.L.Porter (2010) The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology. Scientometrics85(2): 595–611.
58. S.Sismondo (2008) Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In: E.J.HackettO.AmsterdamskaM.LynchJ.Wajcman (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 13–31.
59. P.R.Sloan (ed.) (2000) Controlling Our Destinies: Historical, Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives on the Human Genome Project. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
60. P.Stegmaier (2009) The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports10(2): 114–119.
61. M.Strathern (1999) Property, Substance, and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. London; New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press.
62. L.Suchman (2013) Consuming anthropology. In: A.BarryG.Born (eds) Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 141–160.
63. H.Te KulveA.Rip (2011) Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics17(4): 699–714.
64. F.Thoreau (2012) Being enrolled and being engaged back. In: Sciences Sociales Embarquées’ Colloque International, Paris, 13–14 January. Paris: CETCOPRA, Université Paris 1 and CSI, Mines ParisTech.
65. J.Van Maanen (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66. D.Vinck (ed.) (2003) Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. A.Viseu (2012) Integrating the social: Being a social scientist in a nanotechnology laboratory. In: Sciences Sociales Embarquées’ Colloque International, Paris, 13–14 January. Paris: CETCOPRA, Université Paris 1 and CSI, Mines ParisTech.
68. A.ViseuH.Maguire (2012) Integrating and enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in nanotechnology practices. NanoEthics6(3): 195–209.
69. A.Webster (2007) Crossing boundaries social science in the policy room. Science, Technology & Human Values32(4): 458–478.
70. A.Wolfe (2000) Federal policy making for biotechnology, executive branch, ELSI. In: T.H.MurrayM.J.Mehlman (eds) Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 234–240.
71. B.Wynne (2007) Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology & Human Values32(4): 491–503.