In this paper I engage with debates on technoscientific governance, narrative, and emergent public attitudes. Building on a piece of social research addressing public responses to the social and ethical dimensions of emerging nanotechnologies, I develop a methodology and mode of analysis designed to take into account four distinctive features of nanotechnology discourse and its constitution in the public sphere, namely: its unfamiliarity; its promissory quality; its uncanniness; and its metaphysical assumptions of progress. Through an analysis of common narratives that shape and structure lay public responses to the technology, and in response to framings of how the technology and its applications are being crafted in the public domain, I argue that nanotechnologies offer a site for an intense future politics centred on dilemmas of body invasion, unanticipated risks, nature's revenge, control, inequalities, and pace of change. I conclude with a set of reflections on the role of the critical social sciences in such a future technopolitics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamB, 1998Timescapes and Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards (Routledge, London).
AEBC, 2001Crops on TrialAgriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, London.
4.
BarbenDFisherESelinCGustonD, 2007, “Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration”, in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies3rd edition, Eds HackettEAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 979–1000.
5.
BeckU, 1992The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London).
6.
Bensaude-VincentB, 2004, “Two cultures of nanotechnology”HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry1065–82.
7.
BerneR, 2006Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers about Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology (Lawrence Erlbaum, Nahwah, NJ).
8.
BMRB Social Research, 2004, “Nanotechnology: Views of the general public. Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study”, British Market Research Bureau, report prepared for The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group, London, http://www.nanotec.org.uk/Market%20Research.pdf.
9.
BrownN, 2000, “Organising/disorganising the breakthrough motif: Dolly the cloned ewe meets Astrid the hybrid pig”, in Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience Eds BrownNRappertBWebsterA (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 87–110.
10.
BrownN, 2005, “Shifting tenses: Reconnecting regimes of truth and hope”Configurations13331–355.
11.
BrownNMichaelM, 2003, “A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management153–18.
12.
BrownNRappertBWebsterA (Eds), 2000, Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
13.
ChilversJ, 2008, “Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community”Environment and Planning A402990–3008.
14.
DaviesG, 2006, “The sacred and the profane: Biotechnology, rationality, and public debate”Environment and Planning A38423–443.
15.
DaviesGBurgessJ, 2004, “Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process”Health and Place10349–361.
FleckL, 1979Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
25.
FranklinS, 2003, “Ethical biocapital: New strategies of cell culture”, in Remaking Life and Death: Towards an Anthropology of the Biosciences Eds FranklinSLockM (School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM) pp 97–128.
26.
GaskellGTen EyckTJacksonJVeltriG, 2005, “Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States”Public Understanding of Science1481–90.
27.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtenPMayerS.WynneB, 1997, “Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain”, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
28.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtenP.WynneB, 2000, “Wising up: The public and new technologies”, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
29.
HackingI, 1992, “‘Style’ for historians and philosophers”Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science231–20.
30.
HagendijkR, 2004, “The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds”Minerva4241–59.
Lux Research, 2008The Nanotech Report: Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology5th edition (Lux Research, New York).
40.
MacnaghtenP, 2004, “Animals in their nature: A case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’”Sociology38533–551.
41.
MacnaghtenPKearnesM.WynneB, 2005, “Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?”Science Communication27268–287.
42.
MacoubrieJ, 2006, “Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government”Public Understanding of Science15221–241.
43.
MichaelM, 2006Technoscience and Everyday Life: The Complex Simplicities of the Mundane (Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berks).
44.
MilburnC, 2004, “Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: Science fiction as science”, in Nanoculture: Implications of the New Technoscience Ed. HaylesN (Intellect Books, Bristol) pp 109–129.
45.
MORI, 2005Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research Market and Opinion Research International (Department of Trade and Industry, London).
46.
NobleD, 1999The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention (Penguin, New York).
47.
NordmannA, 2005, “Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano”Techné83–23.
48.
NordmannA, 2007a, “Knots and strands”Journal of Medicine and Philosophy32217–236.
49.
NordmannA, 2007b, “If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics”Nanoethics131–46.
RipA, 2006, “Folk theories of nanotechnologists”Science as Culture15349–365.
56.
RocoMBainbridgeW (Eds), 2002Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA).
57.
Rogers-HaydenTPidgeonN, 2007, “Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry”Public Understanding of Science16346–364.
58.
RoseN, 2007The Politics of Life Itself Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
59.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and UncertaintiesRoyal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
60.
SchwartzA, 2004, “Shrinking the ecological footprint with nanotechnoscience?”, in Discovering the Nanoscale Eds BairdDNordmannASchummerJ (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 203–208.
61.
SelinC, 2007, “Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology”Science, Technology and Human Values321–25.
62.
SheetzTVidalJPearsonTLozanoK, 2005, “Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns”Technology in Society27329–345.
63.
SwierstraTRipA, 2007, “Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology”Nanoethics33–20.
64.
TaylorC, 2002, “Modern social imaginaries”Public Culture1491–124.
65.
TurneyJ, 1998Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).
66.
WaldronASpencerDBattC, 2006, “The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology”Journal of Nanoparticle Research8569–575.
67.
WhiteH, 1987The Content of the Form: Narrative, Discourse and Historical Representation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD).
