What is nanotechnoscience? What are the characteristic features of nanotechnoscience? How do the practicing scientists and engineers, that is, practitioners label their work? How do they see the relationship between science and technology given the fast emerging research area of nanoscience and nanotechnology? Do they still celebrate the differences between these two? Is the relationship between them undergoing a change? Although there are a few scholarly articles available on understanding the concept of “nanotechnoscience,” there is almost no empirical study conducted so far to understand the perspectives of the practitioners. This paper, therefore, focuses on understanding the concept and characteristic features of nanotechnoscience deriving from an in-depth interview-based empirical study among 58 practitioners. The study found about 10 characteristic features of technoscience that were reflected in the research work and perspectives of the practitioners. The technoscientific features drawn from this study could be applied to other emerging technoscience areas.
AndersonW (2002) Postcolonial technoscience. Social Studies of Science32(5–6): 643–658.
2.
BainbridgeWS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research4: 561–570.
3.
Bensaude-VincentB (2004) Two cultures of nanotechnology?International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry10(2): 65–82.
4.
BruneHErnstHGrunwaldAGrünwaldWHofmannHKrugHJanichPMayorMRathgeberWSchmidGSimonUVogelVWyrwaD (2006) Nanotechnology: Assessment and Perspectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5.
BuenoO (2004) The Drexler-Smalley debate on nanotechnology: Incommensurability at work?International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry10(2): 83–98.
6.
DoubledayR (2007) Organizing accountability: Co-production of technoscientific and social worlds in a nanoscience laboratory. Area39(2): 166–175.
7.
GaskellGTen EyckTJacksonJVeltriG (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science14(1): 81–90.
8.
GoldenbergL (2007) Nanotechnologies and society in Canada. In: HuntGMehtaMD (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan, 105–120.
9.
GorokhovVG (2009) Methodological problems of nanotechnoscience. In: HahnHSidorenkoATiginyanuI (eds) Nanoscale Phenomena: Fundamentals and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 193–205.
10.
HarawayD (1997) Modest_Witness@Second-Millennium. New York: Routledge.
11.
IhdeDSelingerE (eds) (2003) Chasing Technoscience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
KlineR (1995) Construing “technology” as “applied science”: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. Isis86(2): 194–221.
13.
KoyréA (1948) Du monde de l’à peu près a l’univers de la precision. Critique4(28): 809.
14.
KrigeJ (2006) Critical reflections on the science–technology relationship. Transactions of the Newcomen Society76(B): 259–269.
15.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
LaytonETJr. (1974) Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture15(1): 31–41.
17.
MasamiMHuntGMasayukiO (2007) Nanotechnologies and society in Japan. In: HuntGMehtaMD (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan, 59–73.
18.
MillsK (2007) Nanotechnologies and society in the USA. In: HuntGMehtaMD (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan, 74–91.
19.
NordmannA (2004) Molecular disjunctions: Staking claims at the nanoscale. In: BairdDNordmannASchummerJ (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 51–62.
20.
NordmannA (2008) Philosophy of nanotechnoscience. In: SchmidG (ed.) Nanotechnology. Volume 1: Principles and Fundamentals. Weinheim: Wiley, 217–244.
21.
NordmannA (2011) Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance. In: HodgeGABowmanDMMaynardAD (eds) International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 25–45.
22.
PetersenAAndersonAAllanSWilkinsonC (2009) Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 512–530.
23.
PrasadA (2005) Scientific culture in the “other” theater of “modern science”: An analysis of the culture of magnetic resonance imaging research in India. Social Studies of Science35(3): 463–489.
24.
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2010) Consumer products: An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. Washington DC: PEN. Available at: www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
25.
RocoMCWilliamsSAlivisatosP (eds) (1999) Nanotechnology Research Directions: The Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology Workshop Report on Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade. Washington DC: National Science and Technology Council.
26.
Royal Academy of Engineering and Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: Royal Society.
27.
ShapinS (2008) The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
SingerPSalamanca-BuentelloFDaarAS (2005) Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues in Science Technology21(Summer): 57–64.
29.
TilesMOberdiekH (1995) Living in a Technological Culture: Human Tools and Human Values. New York: Routledge.
30.
WiseG (1985) Science and technology. Osiris (2nd series) 1: 229–246.
