Abstract
By embracing the performative logic of technoscience, state policy makers are reimagining the relations among science, technology and society, in the process creating both practical and symbolic shifts in governance. These shifts—including possibilities for more deliberative and interactive roles for scientists, social scientists, and public citizens—are themselves situated within a technoscientific frame: they potentially open up more distributed and diverse opportunities for participation in the social processes that shape technological emergence, even as they organize such participatory roles within more broadly coordinated attempts at governmental control and frame them in terms of a state-sponsored imaginary of collectivized innovation and sociability. Using the case of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the United States, this chapter reflects on the interplay of enthusiasm and ambivalence that led to an increasing acknowledgement of the role social sciences can play in the performance of technoscientific processes. While this development can be seen as an opportunity for distributive and democratic governance of technoscience, it also intensifies technosciencesociety entanglements.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I am grateful to Alfred Nordmann for suggesting this phrase.
- 2.
A similar situation has been observed in synthetic biology policy discourses, as suggested by the related phrase, “synbiophobiaphobia” (Marris 2015).
- 3.
My own program in socio-technical integration research (STIR; Fisher 2007; Fisher et al. 2015; Fisher and Schuurbiers 2013), which draws inspiration from technology assessment and public engagement and also informs research agendas in both anticipatory governance and responsible innovation, inclines toward the latter view.
References
Anderson, B. 2007. Hope for Nanotechnology: Anticipatory Knowledge and the Governance of Affect. Area 39 (2): 156–165.
Arnall, A.H. 2003. Future Technologies, Today’s Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D.H. Guston. 2008. Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bennett, I., and D. Sarewitz. 2006. Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture 15 (4): 309–325.
Berube, D.M. 2006. Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Borup, M., et al. 2006. The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18 (3–4): 285–298.
Bush, G.W. 2006. State of the Union Address, January 31, 2006.
Clinton, W.J. 2000. President Clinton’s Address to Caltech on Science and Technology. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. https://caltechcampuspubs.library.caltech.edu/2676/1/nano_clinton.pdf. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
Cobb, M.D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public Perceptions About Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 (4): 395–405.
Conca, K. 1994. Rethinking the Ecology-Sovereignty Debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (3): 701–711.
Crichton, M. 2002. Prey. New York: Harper Collins.
Crow, M.M., and D. Sarewitz. 2001. Nanotechnology and Societal Transformation. In AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, ed. A.H. Teich, S.D. Nelson, C. McEnaney, and S.J. Lita, 89–101. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Economist, The. 2004. Small Wonders, 29 December. https://www.economist.com/node/3494722. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
ETC Group. 2003a. The Big Down: From Genomes to Atoms. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/thebigdown.pdf. Accessed on 13 July 2017.
———. 2003b. Nanotech and the Precautionary Prince. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/158/01/precautionprince.pdf. Accessed on 13 July 2017.
Felt, U. 2014. Within, Across and Beyond: Reconsidering the Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe. Science as Culture 23 (3): 384–396.
Fisher, E. 2005. Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society 27 (3): 321–328.
———. 2007. Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 1 (2): 155–165.
———. 2011. Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 607–620.
———. 2019. Governing with Ambivalence: The Tentative Origins of Socio-Technical Integration. Research Policy 48 (5): 1138–1149.
Fisher, E., and R.L. Mahajan. 2006. Contradictory Intent? US Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development. Science and Public Policy 33 (1): 5–16.
Fisher, E., and D. Schuurbiers. 2013. Socio-Technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, 97–110. Dordrecht: Springer.
Fisher, E., et al. 2015. Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61.
Guston, D.H. 2014. ‘Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance. Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242.
Hackett, E., and D. Rhoten. 2011. Engaged, Embedded, Enjoined: Science and Technology Studies in the National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 823–838.
House Committee on Science. 2003. Report 108–89. S. Boehlert, US House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st Session.
Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, Social Theory & Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 2011. Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 621–638.
Joy, B. 2000. Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, Wired 8 (4). https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/. Accessed on 13 July 2017.
Kearnes, M., and B. Wynne. 2007. On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1 (2): 131–142.
Kennedy, J. 2008. Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think. In Presenting Futures, 1–21. Dordrecht: Springer.
Litfin, K.T. 1997. Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (2): 167–204.
Lok, C. 2010. Nanotechnology: Small Wonders. Nature News 467 (7311): 18–21.
Lucivero, F. 2015. Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Macnaghten, P., M.B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? Science Communication 27 (2): 268–291.
Marris, C. 2015. The Construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology. Science as Culture 24 (1): 83–98.
McCray, W.P. 2005. Will Small Be Beautiful? Making Policies for Our Nanotech Future. History and Technology 21 (2): 177–203.
McGrail, S. 2010. Nano Dreams and Nightmares: Emerging Technoscience and the Framing and (Re) interpreting of the Future, Present and Past. Journal of Futures Studies 14 (4): 23–48.
Mnyusiwalla, A., A.S. Daar, and P.A. Singer. 2003. “Mind the Gap”: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14 (3): R9.
National Research Council; Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences; Committee for the Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2002. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontier: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nordmann, A. 2006. Collapse of Distance: Epistemic Strategies of Science and Technoscience. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 41 (7): 7–34.
———. 2010. A Forensics of Wishing: Technology Assessment in the Age of Technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis 7 (1–2): 5–15.
Obama, B. 2010. State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010.
Peterson, C.L. 2004. Nanotechnology: From Feynman to the Grand Challenge of Molecular Manufacturing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 23 (4): 9–15.
Pollock, N., and R. Williams. 2010. The Business of Expectations: How Promissory Organizations Shape Technology & Innovation. Social Studies of Science 40 (4): 525–548.
Rip, A. 2006. Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15 (4): 349–365.
———. 2009. Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports 10 (7): 666–670.
Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Schuurbiers, D. 2011. What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 769–788.
Schwarz, A., and A. Nordmann. 2011. The Political Economy of Technoscience. In Science in the Context of Application, ed. M. Carrier and A. Nordmann, 317–336. Dordrecht: Springer.
Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values 32 (2): 196–220.
Smart, B. 1998. Facing Modernity: Ambivalence, Reflexivity and Morality. London: Sage.
Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.
Thorpe, C., and J. Gregory. 2010. Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science. Science as Culture 19 (3): 273–301.
US Congress, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. 2003. Public Law no 108–153, 117 STAT. 1923.
Valve, H., and R. McNally. 2013. Articulating Scientific Practice with PROTEE: STS, Loyalties, and the Limits of Reflexivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (4): 470–491.
Viseu, A. 2015. Caring for Nanotechnology? Being an Integrated Social Scientist. Social Studies of Science 45 (5): 642–664.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
Wynne, B. 2011. Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes. Commentary on: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 791–800.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant 1535120).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fisher, E. (2020). Governing Technoscience in Society: Tracing the Dialectics of Enthusiasm, Ambivalence, and Adjustment. In: Maasen, S., Dickel, S., Schneider, C. (eds) TechnoScienceSociety. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43965-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43965-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43964-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43965-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)