Skip to main content

Governing Technoscience in Society: Tracing the Dialectics of Enthusiasm, Ambivalence, and Adjustment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
TechnoScienceSociety

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 30))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I am grateful to Alfred Nordmann for suggesting this phrase.

  2. 2.

    A similar situation has been observed in synthetic biology policy discourses, as suggested by the related phrase, “synbiophobiaphobia” (Marris 2015).

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D.M. 2006. Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, M., et al. 2006. The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18 (3–4): 285–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, G.W. 2006. State of the Union Address, January 31, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M.D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public Perceptions About Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 (4): 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. 1994. Rethinking the Ecology-Sovereignty Debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (3): 701–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crichton, M. 2002. Prey. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 1 (2): 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 607–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Governing with Ambivalence: The Tentative Origins of Socio-Technical Integration. Research Policy 48 (5): 1138–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., et al. 2015. Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2014. ‘Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance. Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • House Committee on Science. 2003. Report 108–89. S. Boehlert, US House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st Session.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, Social Theory & Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2011. Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 621–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. 2008. Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think. In Presenting Futures, 1–21. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litfin, K.T. 1997. Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (2): 167–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lok, C. 2010. Nanotechnology: Small Wonders. Nature News 467 (7311): 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucivero, F. 2015. Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C. 2015. The Construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology. Science as Culture 24 (1): 83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCray, W.P. 2005. Will Small Be Beautiful? Making Policies for Our Nanotech Future. History and Technology 21 (2): 177–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnyusiwalla, A., A.S. Daar, and P.A. Singer. 2003. “Mind the Gap”: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14 (3): R9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. 2006. Collapse of Distance: Epistemic Strategies of Science and Technoscience. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 41 (7): 7–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. A Forensics of Wishing: Technology Assessment in the Age of Technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis 7 (1–2): 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. 2010. State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C.L. 2004. Nanotechnology: From Feynman to the Grand Challenge of Molecular Manufacturing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 23 (4): 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, N., and R. Williams. 2010. The Business of Expectations: How Promissory Organizations Shape Technology & Innovation. Social Studies of Science 40 (4): 525–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. 2006. Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15 (4): 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports 10 (7): 666–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values 32 (2): 196–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, B. 1998. Facing Modernity: Ambivalence, Reflexivity and Morality. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. 2003. Public Law no 108–153, 117 STAT. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viseu, A. 2015. Caring for Nanotechnology? Being an Integrated Social Scientist. Social Studies of Science 45 (5): 642–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant 1535120).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Fisher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics