The Politicization of Science and Technology: Its Implications for Nanotechnology

Ziman J. , Real Science: What it Is, and What it Means (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

I am indebted to Wartofsky M. W. , “Technology, Power, and Truth: Political and Epistemological Reflections on the Fourth Revolution,” in Winner L. , ed., Democracy in the Technological Society (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992) for my analysis. Other scholars have different categories of technological revolutions. See particularly Brooks R. A. , Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us (New York: Vintage Books, 2002) in which he provides the following categories: agricultural revolution (10,000 years ago); civilization revolution (5,500 years ago); industrial revolution (18th century – invention of the steam engine); information revolution (19th century – invention of the telegraph); robotics revolution (current); and biotechnology revolution (current). Although these categories are helpful they do no constitute the basis of my analysis.

Values are not specifically mentioned by Wartofsky but as I will point out they play an important role in the current research culture of post-academic science, see Ziman , supra note 1, at 73.

Wartofsky , supra note 2, at 28.

The role played by politics (and economics) in contemporary (post)-academic scientific culture is as important as science and technology themselves. As Ziman observes, “state patronage inevitably brings politics into science – and science into politics…The emergence of science policy – more generally, science and technology policy – is a major factor in the transition to a new regime for science”, see Ziman , supra note 1, at 74–75, emphasis in original.

Ziman , supra note 1, at 73.

Ziman , supra note 1, at 68. The characterization by Ziman of contemporary science as post-academic is meant to capture the social concern to apply pure scientific knowledge to practical problems, i.e., industrial applications. As Ziman remarks, “[h]aving observed the revolutionary capabilities of this knowledge in medicine, engineering, industry, agriculture, warfare, etc., people have become very impatient with the slow rate at which it diffuses out of the academic world. Governments, commercial firms, citizen groups and the general public are all demanding much more systematic arrangements for identifying, stimulating and exploiting potentially useful knowledge”, supra note 1, at 73. In other words, socio-economic constraints move scientists away from pure science and closer to pragmatic concerns. For an account of the dialectic between pure science and applied science, see Johnson A. , “The End of Pure Science? Science Policy from Bayh-Dole to the NNI,” Discovering Nanotechnology II, International Conference at Darmstadt Technical University, October 9–12, 2003, available at <http://www.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/phil/nanopapers.html> (last visited Septmeber 19, 2006).

Cilliers P. , Complexity & Postmodernism (New York: Routledge, 1998): at 1.

It is true that scientific projects and discoveries are evaluated from various economic and scientific angles. However, it must be stressed that discoveries are first evaluated commercially before they are validated scientifically. That is, research with no scientific or social value will be difficult to justify unless it can be proven to have potential economic benefits, see Ziman , supra note 1, at 74.

Ziman , supra note 1, at 74.

Gibbons M. Limoges C. Nowotny H. Schwartzman S. Scott P. , and Trow M. , The New Production of Knowledge (London: Sage Publications, 1994).

Gibbons , supra note 11, at 19.

Nowotny H. , Helga on the Internet, The Potential of Transdisciplinarity, at <http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5/24> (last visited September 11, 2006).

Gibbons , supra note 11, at 19.

Gibbons , supra note 11, at 50.

Gibbons , supra note 11, at 24.

Ziman J. , “‘Postacademic Science’: Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms,” Science Studies 9 (1996): 67–80, at 78–79.

Ziman , supra note 1, at 74.

Ziman , supra note 1, at 210.

Gibbons , supra note 11, at 36.

Lyotard J. , The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984): at 45. (Translation from the French by G. Bennington and B. Massumi).

Lyotard , supra note 20, at 46.

Nowotny H. Scott P. , and Gibbons M. , Re-thinking Science (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001): at 23.

Theis T. N. , “Information Technology Based on a Mature Nanotechnology: Some Societal Implications,” in Roco C. M. and Bainbridge W. S. , eds., Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Boston: Kluwer, 2001): 74–84.

See Faraday Partnership website, “Electronics Glossary,” at <www.eppic-faraday.com/glossary.html> (last visited September 11, 2006).

See WordNet website, at <http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn> (last visited September 11, 2006).

See <www.solexa.co.uk/Glossary/g.html>.

Although this discussion needs further developments, it is noteworthy to look at Theis' understanding of nanotechnology. As noted above, for him nanotechnology is more than just the ability to build things at the atomic level. In his view, nanotechnology is “about the creation and the manipulation of information… Information is now understood to be a measurable, rigorously defined, fundamental construct of physics, on the same conceptual level as energy or entropy.” Theis, supra note 25, at 61.

NASA Ames Research Center (2004), Center for Nanotechnology webpage, at <http://www.ipt.arc.nasa.gov/nanotechnology.html> (last visited September 11, 2006).

Jones Richard asserts that our ability to observe and manipulate matter at the nanoscale is novel and not in dispute. As he remarks “what is now not in dispute is that scientists have an unprecedented ability to observe and control matter on the tiniest scales. Being able to image atoms and molecules is routine, but we can do more than simply observe; we can pick molecules up and move them around. Scientists also understand more about the ways in which the properties of matter change when it is structured on these tiny length scales. Technologists are excited by the prospects of exploiting the special properties of nanostructured matter. What these properties promise are materials that are stronger, computers that are faster, and drugs that are more effective than those we have now.” Jones R. , Soft Machines (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004): at 2.

Roco and Bainbridge , supra note 25, at 1.

Roco M. C. Williams R. S. , and Alivisatos P. , Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for Nanotechnology in the Next Decade (Boston: Kluwer, 2000): at xii.

Khushf G. , “The Ethics of Nanotechnology: On the Vision and Values of a New Generation of Science and Engineering,” in National Academy of Engineering, Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in Engineering (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004): 29–56.

National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 2003, Statement for the Record on Nanotechnology, statement given before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, May 1, 2003.

Interestingly, in Germany a cleansing product called “Magic Nano” was recalled after at least 77 people reported severe respiratory problems according to the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin. See Weiss R. , “Nanotech Product Recalled in Germany,” Washington Post, April 6, 2006, at A02.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory, 2006. Available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44Report> (last visited September 11, 2006).

N. Gordon and U. Sagman, Nanomedicine Taxonomy, Canadian Institutes of Health Research & Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance (2003).

Ziman , supra note 1, at 327.

For an overview of the debate, see Baum R. , “Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley Make the Case for and against ‘Molecular Assemblers’,” Chemical and Engineering News 81 (2003): 37–42. In a series of open letters between Drexler and Smalley, exchanged in Chemical and Engineering News, each scientist defends a particular view as to what nanotechnology (qua molecular assemblers) can accomplish. Smalley argues from the standpoint of chemistry and sees limitations to applications. On the other hand, Drexler argues from a mechanical perspective and believes that there are no limits to nanotechnology and molecular assemblers.

See Moor J. and Weckert J. , “Nanoethics: Assessing the Nanoscale from an Ethical Point of View,” at <http://www.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/phil/Moor.pdf> (last visited September 19, 2006); and Grunwald A. , “Nanotechnology –A New Field of Ethical Inquiry?” Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2005): 187–201.

Khushf , supra note 33.

Khushf , supra note 33, emphasis added.

Shamoo A. E. and Resnik D. B. , Responsible Conduct of Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): at 4.

Salomon J. , “Science, Technology and Democracy,” Minerva 38 (2000): 33–51, at 38.

Cilliers , supra note 8, at 2, emphasis added.

See Mnyusiwalla A. Daar A. S. , and Singer P. A. , “‘Mind the Gap’: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology,” Nanotechnology 14 (2003): 9–13; Khushf , supra note 33; and Grunwald , supra note 40, at 198.