Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating and Enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in Nanotechnology Practices

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The integration of nanotechnology’s ‘social and ethical issues’ (SEI) at the research and development stage is one of the defining features of nanotechnology governance in the United States. Mandated by law, integration extends the field of nanotechnology to include a role for the “social”, the “public” and the social sciences and humanities in research and development (R&D) practices and agendas. Drawing from interviews with scientists, engineers and policymakers who took part in an oral history of the “Future of Nanotechnology” symposium at the Cornell NanoScale Facility, this article examines how nanotechnology’s ‘social and ethical issues’ are brought to life by these practitioners. From our analysis, three modes of enactment emerge: enacting SEI as obligations and problems-to-be-solved, enacting SEI by ‘not doing it’ in the laboratory, and enacting SEI as part of scientific practice. Together they paint a complex picture where SEI are variously defined, made visible or invisible, included and excluded, with participants showing their skill at both boundary-work (Gieryn Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795, 1983, 1999) and at integration. We conclude by reflecting on what this may mean for the design and implementation of SEI integration policies, suggesting that we need to transform SEI from obligations into ‘matters of care’ (Puig de la Bellacasa Soc Stud Sci 41(1):85–106, 2011) that tend to existing relationalities between science and society and implicate practitioners themselves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A few methodologies have been devised to accomplish such goals, namely ‘anticipatory governance’ [4, 25], ‘constructive technology assessment’ [47–49] or ‘midstream modulation’ [10, 12], each possessing its own set of contingencies that are beyond the scope of this article.

  2. This participant is not identified here due to an expressed wish to remain anonymous.

  3. We use the masculine here to reflect the predominance of males in our study and science at large.

  4. The second level involved citing previous research in publications, and the third involved an ambiguous ‘wear[ing] your hat as a citizen of this world’… and ‘satisfy[ing] your moral side by just doing the best to promote technology you think is best,’ which again relate to enactments of SEI as personal choices.

References

  1. Anderson B (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anonymous (2004, October 21) Going public. Nature 431(7011):883

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barad K (1998) Getting real: technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differ J Fem Cult 10(2):87–107

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston D (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000

    Google Scholar 

  5. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanoparticle Res 10:549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Calvert J, Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(13)):201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Doubleday R, Viseu A (2009) Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science? In: Kjolberg K, Wickson F (eds) Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nano sciences and technologies. Pan Stanford Publishing, New Jersey, pp 51–75

    Google Scholar 

  8. Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, european commission, Brussels. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en1.pdf

  9. Fisher E (2005) Lessons learned from ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technol Soc 27:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2):155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher E, Mahajan R (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher E, Mahajan R, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flatow I (2007, June 15) Nanotechnology. Science Friday: Making science user friendly. (New York, NY: National Public Radio.) Retrieved from, http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Jun/hour2_061507.html

  14. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gieryn TF (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gorman ME, Groves JF, Shrager J (2004) Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 63–73

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grunwald A (2011) Ten years of research on nanotechnology and society—outcomes and achievements. In: Zulsdorf TB, Coenen C, Ferrari A, Fiedeler U, Milburn C (eds) Quantum engagements: Social reflections of nanoscience and emergent technologies. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guston D (2010, May) Societal dimensions research in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. CSPO Report #10-02. (Arizona State University: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes). Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://www.cspo.org/library/title/?action=getfile&file=291&section=lib

  19. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14(3):575–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haraway D (1991) Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jasanoff S (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):620–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karinen R, Guston D (2010) Toward anticipatory governance: The experience with nanotechnology. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kavli Institute (2007, June 13) Journalist’s workshop in nanotechnology. Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscience, available: http://www.research.cornell.edu/KIC/events/Journalists2007/index.html

  27. Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1(2):131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Latour B (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  29. Latour B (1988) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  30. Latour B (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. J Crit Inq 30(2):225–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lindee S (1994) The ELSI hypothesis. Isis 85(2):293–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Markussen T (2006) Moving worlds: the performativity of affective engagement. Fem Theory 7(3):291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCain L (2002) Informing technology policy decisions: the US Human Genome Project’s ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case. Technol Soc 24:111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McCarthy E, Kelty C (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnology. Soc Stud Sci 40(3):405–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of nanotechnology researchers. NanoEthics 2:101–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McGregor J, Wetmore JM (2009) Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. NanoEthics 3:17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meslin EM, Thomson EJ, Boyer JT (1997) Bioethics inside the beltway: the ethical, legal, and social implications research program at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 7(3):291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mody CCM (2008) The larger world of nano. Phys Today 61:38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (2005, March) The national nanotechnology initiative: Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from http://www.nano.gov/NNI_06Budget.pdf

  41. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (2011, February) National nanotechnology initiative strategic plan 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2012 from http://www.nano.gov/nnistrategicplan211.pdf

  42. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council, (2000, July) National nanotechnology initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan. Retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/nni2.pdf

  43. Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2008, April) The national nanotechnology initiative: Second assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://www.nano.gov/PCAST_NNAP_NNI_Assessment_2008.pdf

  45. U.S. Public Law 108–153 (2003) 21st century nanotechnology research and development act. 108th Congress. Retrieved June 12, 2008 from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ153.108.pdf

  46. Puig de la Bellacasa M (2011) Matters of care in technoscience: assembling neglected things. Soc Stud Sci 41(1):85–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rip A (2002) Co-evolution of science, technology and society. Expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung and Forschung’s Förderinitiative ‘Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft’ (Science Policy Studies), managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente)

  48. Rip A (2006) A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In: Voss JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–100

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rip A (2009) Futures of ELSA. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(7):666–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Roberts L (1993) Whither the ELSI program? Hastings Cent Rep 23(6):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: NSET workshop report. National Science Foundation, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (Dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwood S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston D (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):732–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schuurbiers D (2011) What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):769–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(5):424–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Snow CP (2001 [1959]) The two cultures. Cambridge University Press, London

  57. Stegmaier P (2009) The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(2):114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Suchman L (1999) Working relations of technology production and use. In: MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) The social shaping of technology, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 258–265

    Google Scholar 

  59. Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  60. Van Oudheusden M (2011) Questioning ‘participation’: a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):673–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Webster A (2007) Crossing boundaries: social science in the policy room. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(4):458–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wolfe A (2000) Federal policy making for biotechnology, executive branch, ELSI. In: Murray TH, Mehlman MJ (eds) Encyclopedia of ethical, legal and policy issues in biotechnology, Vol. 1. Wiley, New York, pp 234–240

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wolfe A (2001) Essay review: ELSI’s revenge. J Hist Biol 34:183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wynne B (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. SAGE Publication, Thousand Oaks, pp 361–391

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Wynne B (2001) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3):281–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wynne B (2007) Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(4):491–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank participants in this study for sharing with us their time and expertise. We would also like to acknowledge support from the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, where the first author worked from 2004 to 2007, under grant no. ECS-0335765 from the National Science Foundation. Finally, a warm thank you for the invaluable feedback provided by Prof. Michael Schillmeier and his students.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. York University, Toronto, Canada

    Ana Viseu

  2. Department of Communication Studies, 4700 Keele St., 3017 TEL Bldg., M3J 1P3, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ana Viseu

  3. ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ana Viseu

  4. Communications and Culture, York University, Toronto, Canada

    Heather Maguire

Authors
  1. Ana Viseu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Maguire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Viseu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Viseu, A., Maguire, H. Integrating and Enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in Nanotechnology Practices. Nanoethics 6, 195–209 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0162-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation