Although nanotechnology is often defined as operations on the 10-9 meters, the lack of charisma in the scale-bound definitions has been fortified by remarkable dreams and alluring promises that spark excitement for nanotechnology. The story of the rhetorical development of nanotechnology reveals how speculative claims are powerful constructions that create legitimacy in this emerging technological domain. From its inception, nanotechnology has been more of a dream than reality, more fiction than fact. In recent years, however, the term nanotechnology has been actively drawn toward the present to begin to deliver on the fantastic expectations. This debate over time and timing is loaded with paradox. This work examines how future claims work to define what counts as nanotechnology and reveals dilemmas that accompany temporal disjunctures. Science and politics converge in debates about the future of technology as expectations serve to create and enforce power and legitimacy in the emerging area.
Akrich, M.1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 259-264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Baum, R.2003. Point-counterpoint: Nanotechnology. Chemical and Engineering News81 (48): 37-42.
4.
Bijker, W., and J. Law, eds. 1992. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organization Science2 (1): 40-57.
6.
Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster, eds. 2000. Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
7.
California Council on Science and Technology. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Opportunities and challenges in California. Riverside: California Council on Science and Technology.
8.
Callon, M.1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Bieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? ed. J. Law, 196-233. London: Routledge.
9.
Callon, M.. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law, 132-161. London: Routledge.
10.
Callon, M.. 1999. Actor network theory: The market test. In Actor network and after, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 181-195. Oxford and Keele, UK: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
11.
Crandall, B. C.1996. Nanotechnology: Molecular speculations on global abundance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Crichton, M.2002. Prey. New York: HarperCollins.
13.
Drexler, E. K.1981. Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.78 (9): 5275-5278. http://www.imm.org/PNAS.html (accessed December 14, 2006).
14.
Drexler, E. K.. 1982. When molecules will do the work. Smithsonian, November, 145-155.
15.
Drexler, E. K.. 1986. Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Doubleday. http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html (accessed December 14, 2006).
16.
Drexler, E. K.. 1992. Nanosystems: Molecular machinery, manufacturing and computation. London: Wiley Interscience.
17.
Drexler, E. K.. 1994. Molecular machines: Physical principles and implementation strategies. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structures. 23: 337-405.
18.
Drexler, E. K.. 1995. Molecular manufacturing: Perspectives on the ultimate limits of fabrication. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A353: 323-331.
19.
Drexler, E. K.. 1999. Building molecular machine systems. Trends in Bio-technology17: 5-7.
20.
Drexler, E. K.. 2003. Nanotechnology: From Feynman to funding. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society24 (1): 21-27.
21.
Drexler, E. K., D. Forrest, R. A. Freitas Jr., J. Storrs Hall, N. Jacobstein, T. McKendree, R. Merkle, and C. Peterson. 2001. On physics, fundamentals, and nanorobots: A rebuttal to Smalley’s assertion that self-replicating mechanical nanorobots are simply not possible. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html (accessed December 14, 2006).
22.
Drexler, E. K., and C. Peterson. 1991. Unbounding the future: The nanotechnology revolution. New York: Morrow.
23.
Drexler, E. K., and C. Phoenix. 2004. Safe exponential manufacturing. Nanotechnology15: 869-872.
24.
Feynman, R.1960. There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science (February): 22-36. http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html (accessed December 13, 2006).
25.
Fleising, U.2001. In search of genohype: A content analysis of biotechnology company documents. New Genetics and Society20 (3): 239-254.
26.
Foresight Press Advisory. 2004. Federal nanotech confusion spreads to California. Nanodot (January 20): http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1416 (accessed December 13, 2006).
27.
Fortun, M.2001. Mediated speculations in the genomics futures markets. New Genetics and Society20 (2): 139-156.
28.
Geels, F., and W. Smit. 2000. Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures32 (9): 867-885.
29.
Gilbert, G. N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Haraway, D.1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
31.
Hassard, J., and J. Law, eds. 1999. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.
32.
Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science33 (3): 327-364.
33.
Institute of Nanotechnology. 2002. Nano pioneers. http://www.nano.org.uk/nano/pioneers.htm (accessed December 14, 2006).
34.
Jasanoff, S., G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, eds. 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage.
35.
Joy, B.2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired8 (4): http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (accessed December 14, 2006).
36.
Kary, T.2002. Nanotech: More science than fiction. ZDNet Special, February 11 http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-833739.html (accessed December 14, 2006).
37.
Kurzweil, R.1999. The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. London: Viking.
38.
Kurzweil, R.. 2000. Promise and the peril. Interactive Week, October 23. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0156.html?printable=1 (accessed December 13, 2006).
39.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific fact. New York: Sage.
41.
Lawson, S.2003. U.S. lawmakers approve $3.7 billion of nanotech funding. Industry Standard, November 24. http://www.thestandard.com/article.php?story=20031124174818480 (accessed December 14, 2006).
Martin, M., R. Cobb, H. Schlossberg, J. Mitola, D. Weidow, A. Peffer, R. Blomquist, M. Campbell, C. Hall, E. Hansen, S. Horan, C. Kitts, F. Redd, H. Reed, H. Spence, and B. Twiggs. 1999. University nanosatellite program. Paper presented at the IAF Symposium, Redondo Beach, CA, April 19.
44.
NASA. 2002. Nanotechnology. Center for Nanotechnology. http://www.ipt.arc.nasa.gov/nanotechnology.html (accessed December 13, 2006).
45.
National Science Foundation. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Final report from the workshop held at the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, September 28.
46.
Phelps, L.1996. Web enables effective nanotechnology debate with Scientific American. Foresight Update25 (July 15): http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update25/Update25.1.html%23anchor1246338 (accessed December 14, 2006).
47.
Rappert, B., and N. Brown. 2000. Putting the future in its place: Comparing innovation moments in genetic diagnostics and telemedicine. New Genetics and Society19 (1): 49-75.
48.
Rocco, M.2002. Research and development FY 2003/national nanotechnology investment in the FY 2003 budget request by the president. AAAS/ASME Briefing, February 13. http://www.nano.gov/2003budget.html (accessed December 13, 2006).
49.
Rosenberg, N.1976. On technological expectations. Economic Journal86 (343): 523-535.
50.
Royal Society. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society.
51.
Service, R.2000. Is nanotechnology dangerous? Science29 (November 24): 1526-1527.
52.
Smalley, R. E.2001. Of chemistry, love, and nanobots. Scientific American285 (September): 76-77.
53.
Stix, G.1996. Trends in nanotechnology: Waiting for breakthroughs. Scientific American (April): 94-99.
54.
Stix, G.. 2001. Little big science. Scientific American (September): 78-83.
55.
Taniguchi, N. 1974. On the basic concept of “nano-technology.” In Proceedings from the International Conference on Product Engineering. Tokyo: Japan Society of Precision Engineering.
56.
van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Ph.D. diss., Universitet Twente, the Netherlands.
57.
van Lente, H., and A. Rip. 1998. The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science28 (2): 221-254.
58.
Whitesides, G. M.2001. The once and future nanomachine. Scientific American28 (September): 78-83.
59.
Wyatt, S.2000. Talking about the future: Metaphors of the Internet. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, edited by N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
