This paper examines the prospects for integrating social context questions within science and technology research and development governance. While the use of public engagement to investigate social aspects of emerging technologies is increasingly accepted, incorporating social understandings into research and development processes is far less developed. The paper outlines two Australian public engagement workshops in the social issues of nanotechnologies, and a third workshop with nanoscientists, which explored governance options for incorporating social context questions within research processes. Our research suggests that in Australia we are still some distance from integrating social issues into nanotechnology research and development governance. In part, this is because the difficulties of prediction and control of nanotechnologies, together with particular characteristics of scientific cultures and institutions, make both prospects and outcomes of integration difficult to assess.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berube, D.M. ( 2004) "The Rhetoric of Nanotechnology," in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 173-92. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
2.
BMRB International (2004) "Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public," prepared for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group .
3.
Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University (2005) Real Time Technology Assessment Research Program. URL: http://cns.asu.edu/program/research.htm (accessed September 2005).
4.
Chess, C. and Purcell, K. ( 1999) "Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?," Environmental Science and Technology33(16): 2685-92.
5.
Collingridge, D. ( 1980) The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
6.
Danish Board of Technology (2005) " Citizens’ Attitudes towards Nanotechnology." URL: http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=1093&toppic=kategori11&language=uk&category=11 (accessed August 2005).
7.
Dryzek, J. ( 1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science . New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Dryzek, J. ( 1996) Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles . New York: Oxford University Press .
9.
Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E. and Breck, T. ( 2001) "Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia," Public Understanding of Science10: 83-98.
10.
ETC Group (2003a) The Big Down-Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nanoscale. Winnipeg, Manitoba: ETC Group.
11.
ETC Group (2003b) "Size Matters! No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium," Occasional Paper Series, vol. 7, no. 1. Winnipeg, Manitoba: ETC Group.
Genus, A. ( 2006) "Rethinking Constructive Technology Assessment as Democratic, Reflective, Discourse" Technology Forecasting and Social Change73: 13-26.
14.
Genus, A. and Coles, A.-M. ( 2005) "On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management17(4): 433-43.
15.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. ( 1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Science. Newbury Park, CA : SAGE.
16.
Glimell, H. ( 2004) "Grand Visions and Lilliput Politics: Staging the Exploration of the ‘Endless Frontier,’" in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale , pp. 231-46. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
17.
Guston, D.H. ( 1999) "Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunication and the Future of Democracy ," Science, Technology, and Human Values24(4): 451-82.
18.
Guston, D.H. and Sarewitz, D. ( 2002) "Real-Time Technology Assessment," Technology in Society24(1): 93-109.
19.
Hessenbruch, A. ( 2004) "Nanotechnology and the Negotiation of Novelty ," in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 135-44. Amsterdam : IOS Press.
20.
International Risk Governance Council (2005 ) Survey on Nanotechnology Governance. IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology, Working Paper no. 1. Geneva, Switzerland.
21.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2003) "Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science," Minerva41(3): 223-44.
22.
Joy, W. ( 2000) "Why the Future doesn’t Need Us," Wired Magazine8(4): 1-11.
23.
Katz, E. ( 2004) Coordinator’s Report on the SEI Organizational Learning Project 2003-4. DMR 2569. MelbourneCSIROMinerals.
24.
Katz, E. ( 2006) Panel member, "Should Australia Have a Process for the Social and Ethical Evaluation of New Technologies?" Science meets Parliament, February. Federation of Australian Science and Technology (FASTS).
25.
Katz, E., Solomon, F., Mee, W. and Lovel, R. ( 2005) Citizens Panel on Nanotechnology: Report to Participants. DMR 2673. MelbourneCSIROMineral s.
26.
Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wilsdon, J. ( 2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.
27.
Maasen, S. and Merz, M. ( 2006) "TA-SWISS Broadens its Perspective: Technology Assessment with a Social and Cultural Sciences Orientation," TA-SWISS Centre for Technology Assessment, Berne, Switzerland. URLs: www.ta-swiss.ch,www.publiforum.ch (accessed February 2006).
28.
Mee, W., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., Kearns, A., Cameron, F. and Turney, T. ( 2004) The Bendigo Workshop. DMR 2561. MelbourneCSIROMinerals.
29.
Mee, W., Katz, E., Solomon, F. and Lovel, R. ( 2006) "Social Perspectives on Nanotechnology Research and Development: a View from Australia," paper given at the PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology) Conference, presented by the Macauley Institute, Edinburgh, June.
30.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A.S. and Singer, P. ( 2003) "The Science Leaps Ahead, the Ethics Lag Behind ," Nanotechnology14: R9-13.
31.
NanoNed (2005) URL: http://www.nanoned.nl/TA/Documents+and+publications.htm (accessed December 2005).
32.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (2005) Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry . Supplement to President’s FY 2006 Budget, March. URL: http://www.nano.gov/NNI_06Budget.pdf (accessed August 2005).
33.
National Nanotechnology Task Force, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) (2006) URL: http://www.industry.gov.au/content/sitemap.cfm?objectid=F79FE41C-BFE4-1611-36BD6E0EF102E249 (accessed June 2006).
34.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. ( 2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. ( 2003) "Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge," Minerva41(3): 179-94.
36.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2005) Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making. Paris: OECD.
37.
PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering, and Innovation Council) (2005) Nanotechnology: Enabling Technologies for Australian Innovative Industries. Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources Report, 11 March. URL: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1E1B501A-727A-4153-85EF-134B2DAF0925/4112/nanotechnology_pmseic110305.pdf (accessed May 2006).
38.
Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J., eds ( 1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Thomson.
39.
Roco, M.C. ( 2003) "Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology," Journal of Nanoparticle Research5: 181-9.
40.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering ( 2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties . Cardiff: Clyvedon Press.
41.
Salleh, A. ( 2004a) "Public Shares Nanotech Fears," ABC News in Science, 22 November. URL: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1247333.htm
42.
Salleh, A. ( 2004b) "Keep an Eye on Nanotech, says Public," ABC News in Science, 6 December. URL: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1257304.htm
43.
Sarewitz, D. and Woodhouse, E. ( 2003) "Small is Powerful," in A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz and C. Desser (eds) Living with the Genie: Essays on Technology and the Quest for Human Mastery, pp. 63-83. Washington DC: Island Press.
44.
Solomon, F. ( 2005) "Engaging Stakeholders in Dialogue," International Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane .
45.
Solomon, F. and Katz, E. ( 2003) Final Report on the Pilot SEI Organizational Learning Project 2002/3. DMR 2226. MelbourneCSIROMinerals.
46.
Solomon, F. and Katz, E. ( 2006) "Nanotechnology and Society: Experiences of Public Dialogue at CSIRO," International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICONN06), Brisbane, 3-7 July.
47.
Solomon, F., Katz, E., Lovel, R. and Mee, W. ( 2005) CSIRO Nanotechnology and Society Workshop: Integrating Social Issues in R&D Governance. DMR 2780. MelbourneCSIROMinerals.
48.
Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A. and Jones, K. ( 2006) The Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice. London: Demos.
49.
Stirling, A. ( 2005) "Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology," in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 218-31. London: Zed Books.
50.
Toi Te Taiao ( 2003) Report on Nanotechnology to the Minister for the Environment . URL: http://www.bioethics.org.nz/publications/nanotechnology-sep03/nanotechnology-sep03.pdf (accessed January 2005).
51.
UK Council for Science and Technology (2005 ) Policy through Dialogue: Informing Policies Based on Science and Technology. A Report from the Council for Science and Technology. London, March. URL: http://www.2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policy-through-dialogue/report.pdf (accessed September 2006).
52.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. ( 2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos .
53.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. ( 2005) The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
54.
Winner, L. ( 1986) The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Winner, L. ( 2004) "Under the Magnifying Glass: Nanotechnology Needs Open Deliberation Not Boosterism if it is to Serve the Public Good," Alternatives Journal30(1): 34-8.
56.
Wood, S., Jones, R. and Geldart, A. ( 2003) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology . London: Economic and Social Research Council.
57.
Wynne, B. ( 1996) "May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide" in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44-83. London: SAGE.
58.
Wynne, B. ( 2002) "Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?," Current Sociology50(3): 449-77.
