The emerging controversy over nanotechnology is redolent of the pattern of past disputes over new technological fields, which the author describes as the ‘novelty trap’. In each case, ambitious claims for revolutionary innovation are met by sceptical concerns about unintended consequences and new risks, to which advocates respond with reassurances of continuity with past experience. The paper goes on to identify possible obstacles to institutional learning that may result in the repetition of this pattern, including three versions of the deficit model of public understanding. Finally, the author poses the possibility that the pattern itself may represent an emergent form of societal technology assessment, which embodies informal social learning.
ArgyrisC. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
2.
ArnallA.H. (2003), Future Technologies, Today's Choices: Nanotechnology Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; a Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies, Greenpeace Environmental Trust, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf.
Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Science and Technology (2002), New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology, DTI Pub 6182 2k/06/02/NP, URN 02/1034, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
5.
DodgsonM. (1993), ‘Organizational learning: A review of some literatures’, Organization Studies, Vol 14, No 3, p 375.
6.
DouglasM. (1986), How Institutions Think, Frank W. Abrams Lectures, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
7.
EdwardsM.HulmeD. (1995), Non-Governmental Organizations – Performance and Accountability, Earthscan, London.
8.
ErikssonL. (2004), ‘The presentation of the scientific self, Social Studies of Science, Vol 34, No 3, pp 423–426.
Evans-PritchardE.E. (1940), The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
11.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.KunreutherH. (2001), Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, Risk, Society, and Policy Series, Earthscan, London.
12.
GaskellG.BauerM. (2001), Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy, Science Museum Publications, London.
13.
GrossA.G. (1994), ‘The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol 3, pp 3–23.
14.
HaerlinB.ParrD. (1999), ‘How to restore public trust in science’, Nature, Vol 400, p 499.
15.
HinterhuberA. (2002), ‘Value change orchestration in action and the case of the global agrochemical industry’, Long Range Planning, Vol 35, pp 615–635.
16.
Department of Trade and Industry (2002), ‘Science Communication Study’, News Release, 10 September, London.
17.
KolbD.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
LevidowL. (2001), ‘Genetically modified crops: What transboundary harmonization in Europe?’, in Linnerooth-BayerJ.LofstedtR.SjostedtG., eds, Transboundary Risk Management, Earthscan, London, pp xiv, 338.
20.
LewinK. (1936), Principles of Topological Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
21.
MarxK. (1852), The Eighteenth Brumiaire of Louis Bonaparte, reprinted in Karl Marx: Selected Works, Vol 2, Martin Lawrence, London, 1942.
22.
MumfordA. (1990), ‘The individual and learning opportunities’, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 22, No 1, p 17.
23.
Office of Science and Technology and Wellcome Trust (2000), Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain, TR16–1976.a/2k/10–2000/RW.
24.
PerrowC. (1984), Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, Basic Books, New York.
25.
PiagetJ. (1972), The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
26.
RaynerS. (1986), ‘Commentary on J. Ravetz, “Usable knowledge; useable ignorance: Incomplete science with policy implications”’, in ClarkW.C.MunnR.E., eds, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 432–434.
27.
RaynerS. (2003a), ‘Why we can't agree?’, Newsweek, Vol CXLII, No 11, 15 September, p 55.
28.
RaynerS. (2003b), Problems of Social Learning, VIP Keynote Address, Conference on Interface Between Science and Society, Milan, 2003.
29.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004), Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London, http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm.
30.
Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Science and Society, Third Report, House of Lords, London.
31.
SmithG. (2004), ‘Nanotechnology: Friend or foe?’, Science in Parliament, Vol 61, No 1, pp 10–11.
32.
TapscottD. (1998) Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
33.
ThomasP.J.KulkarniG.U. (2003), ‘From coloids to nanotechnology: Investigation on magic nuclearity palladium crystals’, Current Science, Vol 85, No 12, pp 1760–1766.
34.
VerweijM.ThompsonM., eds (2005), Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
WRI (2003), World Resources 2002–2004: Decisions for the Earth – Balance, Voice, and Power, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
37.
WynneB. (1991), ‘Knowledges in context’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol 16, No 1, pp 111–121.
