How Smart Grid Meets In Vitro Meat: on Visions as Socio-Epistemic Practices

NanoEthics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 75-91

  Ferrari, Arianna ^a   Lösch, Andreas ^a  

^a KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Future visions; Science and technology studies; Technology assessment; Vision assessment; Visioneering

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012930054     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-017-0282-9     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. McCray WP (2012) The visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton
2. Nordmann A (2013) Visioneering assessment: on the construction of tunnel visions for technovisionary research and policy science. Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):89–94
3. Sand M (2016) Responsibility and visioneering—opening Pandora’s box. NanoEthics 10(1):75–86. doi:10.1007/s11569-016-0252-7
4. Alvial Palvacino C (2016) Mindful anticipation. A practice approach to the study of emergent technologies. Dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede
5. Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations: the interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):429–444
6. Van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Dissertation University of Twente, Enschede
7. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):285–298
8. Van Lente H (2012) Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(8):769–782
9. Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) (2000) Vision assessment: shaping technology in twenty-first century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Berlin, New York
10. Grunwald A (2012) Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe
11. Grunwald A (2014) The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(3):274–291
12. Rip A, Voss J-P (2013) Umbrella terms as mediators in the governance of emerging science and technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):39–59
13. Dierkes M, Hoffman U, Marz L (1996) Visions of technology. Social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, New York
14. Mambrey P, Tepper A (2000) Technology assessment as a metaphor assessment. Visions guiding the development of information and communications. In: Grin J, Grunwald A (eds) Vision assessment: shaping technology in twenty-first century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 33–52
15. Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Farnham
16. Lösch A (2010) Visual dynamics: the defuturization of the popular ‘nano-discourse’ as an effect of increasing economization. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 89–108
17. Selin C (2007) Expectations in the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220
18. Böhle K, Bopp K (2014) What a vision: the artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 10(1):155–186
19. Ferrari A, Coenen C, Grunwald A (2012) Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. NanoEthics 6(3):215–229
20. Lösch A (2013) Vision Assessment zu Human-Enhancement-Technologien. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu einer Analytik von Visionen im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Kommunikationsprozesse. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 22(1):9–16
21. Callon M (1995) Four models for the dynamics of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 29–63
22. Callon M (1999) Some elements of a sociology of translation. Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge, New York, London, pp 67–83
23. Grunwald A (2015) Die hermeneutische Erweiterung der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 24(2):65–69
24. Adam B, Groves C (2007) Future matters: action, knowledge, ethics. Brill, Leiden, Boston
25. Lösch A (2006a) Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: visionary images as means of communication. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):393–409
26. Lösch A (2006b) Means of communicating innovations. A case study for the analysis and assessment of nanotechnology’s futuristic visions. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 2:103–125
27. Rheinberger HJ (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things, synthesizing proteins in a test tube. Stanford Uni. Press, Standford
28. Knorr-Cetina K (1997) Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society 14(4):1–30
29. Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology Human Values 35(5):601–617
30. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1999) Institutional ecology, ‘translation,’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge. New York, London, pp 505–524
31. Post, M. J. (2013) Cultured beef for food-security and the environment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = XnJn37jiX88 Accessed 20 July 2016
32. Benjaminson MA, Gilchriest JA, Lorenz M (2002) In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS). Acta Astronautica 51(12):879–889. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(02)00033-4
33. Catts O, Zurr I (2014) Growing for different ends. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 56:20–29
34. O’Riordan, K., Fotopoulou, A., Stephens, N. (2016) The first bite. Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662516639001
35. Forgacs, A. (2013) The bio-printing of leather and meat: Andras Forgacs at TEDxMarin 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Q2oLxEOF8
36. Datar, I. (2016a) In vitro meat is cultured. In: Post M., Stephens N., Datar I. (eds.) What Is In Vitro Meat? (2). Food Phreacking, Issue 2: 16–21
37. Ferrari A (2017) Nonhuman animals as food in biocapitalism. In: Nibert D (ed) Capitalism and animal oppression. Prager Press, Broomfield, CO (in press)
38. Post MJ (2012) Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci 92(3):297–301
39. Stephens N (2013) Growing meat in laboratories. The promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations 21(2):159–181
40. Tuomisto HL, Teixeira de Mattos MJ (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45(14):6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u
41. Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR (2015) A case for systemic environmental analysis of cultured meat. J Integr Agric 14(2):249–254
42. Bonny S et al (2015) What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? J Integr Agric 14(2):255–263
43. Post, M. J. (2016) In vitro meat is an emerging technology. In: Post M., Stephens N., Datar I. (eds.) What Is In Vitro Meat? (2). Food Phreacking, Issue 2: 10–15
44. Post MJ (2014) Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 94(6):1039–1041
45. Forgacs, A. (2014) The benefits of in vitro meat. Jason Point in MIT Technology Review, EmTech, September 23, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = ujDMGOcczhY Accessed 20 July 2016
46. Datar, I. (2016b) On animal products without animals, Bitten: A food conversation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = 5FbQ89PFSsk&feature = youtube Accessed 20 July 2016
47. JhA, A. (2013) Synthetic meat: how the world’s costliest burger made it on to the plate, The Guardian, 5 August 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/synthetic-meat-burger-stem-cells. Accessed 20 July 2016
48. Ferrari A (2016) Envisioning the futures of animals through in vitro meat. EurSafe 2016. Book of proceedings. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 265–270
49. Driessen C, Korthals M (2012) Pig towers and in vitro meat. Disclosing moral worlds by design. Soc Stud Sci 42(6):797–820. doi:10.1177/0306312712457110
50. Jochems CEA, van der Valk JB, Stafleu FR, Baumans V (2002) The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem? Altern Lab Anim 30:219–227
51. Singer P (2013) The world’s first cruelty-free hamburger. The guardian. Available online at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/worlds-first-cruelty-free-hamburger, checked on 6/12/2015
52. Strand R, The EPINET Consortium (2015) Working paper on the embedding workshops: public funding and social shaping of in vitro meat, http://www.epinet.no/sites/all/themes/epinet_bootstrap/documents/synthetic_meat_workshop.pdf
53. Simonsen R (2015) Eating for the future: veganism and the challenge of in vitro meat. In: Stapleton P, Byers A (eds) Biopolitics and utopia. An interdisciplinary reader. Palgrave Macmillan Singer, New York, pp 167–190
54. Miller J (2012) In vitro meat: power, authenticity and vegetarianism. Journal for Critical Animal Studies (JCAS) 10(4):41–63
55. Lösch A, Schneider C (2016) Transforming power/knowledge apparatuses: the smart grid in the German energy transition. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 29(3):262–284. doi:10.1080/13511610.2016.1154783
56. Ramchurn SD, Vytelingum P, Rogers A, Jennings NR (2012) Putting the ‘smarts’ into the smart grid: a grand challenge for artificial intelligence. Commun ACM 55(4):86–97. doi:10.1145/2133806.2133825
57. B.A.U.M Consult GmbH (2012) Smart Energy made in Germany. Zwischenergebnisse der E-Energy-Modellprojekte auf dem Weg zum Internet der Energie. B.A.U.M. Consult GmbH, München
58. BMWi (2014) Smart Energy made in Germany. Erkenntnisse zum Aufbau und zur Nutzung intelligenter Energiesysteme im Rahmen der Energiewende. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, Berlin
59. Orwat C (2011) Systemic risks in the electric power infrastructure? Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 20(3):47–55
60. Vu K, Begouic M, Novosel D (1997) Grids get smart protection and control. Computer Applications in Power, IEEE 10(4):40–44
61. Schick L, Gad C (2015) Flexible and inflexible energy engagements—a study of the Danish smart grid strategy. Energy Research & Social Science 9:51–59. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.013
62. Schick L, Winthereik BR (2013) Innovating relations—or why smart grid is not too complex for the public. Science & Technology Studies 26(3):82–102
63. Miller CA, Iles A, Jones C (2013) The social dimensions of energy transitions. Science as Culture 22(2):135–148
64. BMU, BMWi (2011) The Federal Government’s energy concept of 2010 and the transformation of the energy system of 2011. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology and Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Munich
65. Birnbaum, M. (2011) Germany’s ‘make-or-break’ energy experiment. The Washington Post June 10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/germanys-make-or-break-energy-experiment/2011/06/06/AGr2RLOH_story.html. Accessed 20 July 2016
66. Coats, D. (2014). What Obama could learn from Germany’s failed experiment with green energy, FoxNews.com, June 5. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/05/what-obama-could-learn-from-germany-failed-experiment-with-green-energy.html. Accessed 20 July 2016
67. Talbot D (2012) The great German energy experiment. Technol Rev 115(4):50–55
68. Büscher C, Sumpf P (2015) ‘Trust’ and ‘confidence’ as socio-technical problems in the transformation of energy systems. Energy, Sustainability and Society 5(1):34. doi:10.1186/s13705-015-0063-7
69. Covrig CF, Ardelean M, Vasiljevska J et al (2014) Smart grid projects outlook 2014. EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
70. Nyborg S, Røpke I (2013) Constructing users in the smart grid—insights from the Danish eFlex project. Energy Efficiency 6(4):655–670. doi:10.1007/s12053-013-9210-1
71. Engels F, Münch AV (2015) The micro smart grid as a materialised imaginary within the German energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science 9:35–42. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.024
72. Goulden M, Bedwell B, Rennick-Egglestone S et al (2014) Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management. Energy Research & Social Science 2:21–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.008
73. Skjølsvold TM, Ryghaug M (2015) Embedding smart energy technology in built environments: a comparative study of four smart grid demonstration projects. Indoor and Built Environment 24(7):878–890. doi:10.1177/1420326X15596210
74. Energy Supply Company (2013) Transcript of an expert interview with the head of an innovation group of one of the big German energy supply companies, quotations from the German-language transcript translated into English by the authors
75. Schneider C, Lösch A (2015) What about your futures, technology assessment? An essay on how to take the visions of TA seriously, motivated by the PACITA conference. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 24(2):70–74