Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unlocking the Futures of Nanotechology. Future-Oriented Narratives and Access to the Public Discourse on Nanoscale

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Pursuit of Nanoethics

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 10))

  • 684 Accesses

Abstract

Futuristic visions have accompanied the development of nanotechnology since Eric K. Drexler popularized the word with his 1986 book Engines of creation. Future-oriented narratives about expectations and promises of nanoscale technologies have a centre stage in the public discourse, but their statute is anything but controversial. Both prospected innovations and the discourse on anticipated innovations have garnered attention by scholars and commentators: on the one hand, literature focused on the transformative and disruptive power of nanoscale technologies, discussing their potential ethical, social, economic impacts (e.g. HLEG 2005; Ott and Papilloud 2007; Roco and Bainbridge 2001, 2002; Whitman 2007); on the other hand, the disrupting impacts of the underlying values and assumptions of visions and future-oriented narratives on our current ethical and cultural system have been examined (Cameron 2006; Grunwald 2007; Khushf 2005; Schummer 2007).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

References

  • Arnaldi, S. 2010. Ordering technology, exclusive society: The division of labour and sociotechnical order in images of converging technologies. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(23): 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AZonano.com. 2007. Nanotechnology – What are the environmental benefits of nanotechnology. http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2354.

  • Baum, R. 2003. Nanotechnology. Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against ‘molecular assemblers’. Chemical & Engineering News 81(48): 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. 2004. Two cultures of nanotechnology. HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10(2): 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout, F. 2006. Normative expectations in system innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, M., N. Brown, K. Konrad, and H. Van Lente (eds.). 2006. Special issue on the sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster (eds.). 2000. Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno, O. 2004. The Drexler-Smalley debate on nanotechnology: Incommensurability at work? HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10(2): 83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Le Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, N.M. 2006. Nanotechnology and the human future policy, ethics, and risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093: 280–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comitato Nazionale di Bioetica. 2006. Nanoscienze e nanotecnologie, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Rome:

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie. 2006. Éthique et nanotechnologies: se donner les moyens d’agir, Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie, Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGE – The European Group on Ethics in Science and New. Technologies to the European Commission. 2007. Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. – Opinion N° 21. Brussels: EGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETP – European Technology Platform on Nanomedicine. 2006. Nanomedicine. Nanotechnology for health, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2004. Nanotechnology: Innovation for tomorrow’s world. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2008. Commission recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, C(2008) 424 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., et al. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, A. 2009. Controlling the ethics of nanorisk. In Technoscience in progress. Managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology, ed. S. Arnaldi, A. Lorenzet, and F. Russo, 113–128. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, B. 2005. Nanoethics: From utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view. Science and Engineering Ethics 11(4): 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2007. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana and search for orientation. Futures 39(9): 380–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • High Level Expert Group (HLEG). 2005. Converging technologies. Shaping the future of European Societies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khushf, G. 2005. An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies. In Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovation. Converging technologies in society, ed. W.S. Bainbridge and M.C. Roco, 255–278. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., M. Kearns, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, C. 2002. Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: Science fiction as science. Configurations 10(2): 261–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahuis, R., and H. van Lente. 2008. Where are the politics? Perspectives on democracy and technology. Science Technology & Human Values 33(5): 559–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neresini, F. 2006. Starting off on the wrong foot: The public perception of nanotechnologies and the deficit model. Nanotechnology Perceptions 2(2): 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC – National Research Council. 2006. A matter of size: Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSTC – National Science and Technology Council. 1999. Nanotechnology. Shaping the world atom by atom. Washington, DC: NSTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, P., and M.S. Schaefer. 2005. The ‘book of life’ in press: Comparing German and Irish media discourse on human genome research. Social Studies of Science 35(1): 99–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, I., and C. Papilloud. 2007. Converging institutions: Shaping relationships between nanotechnologies, economy and society. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 27(6): 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., and M.C. Roco. 2006. White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., and H. van Lente. 1998. Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In Getting new technologies together: Studies in making sociotechnical order, ed. C. Disco and B. van der Meulen, 203–229. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2002. Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamanca-Buentello, F., D.L. Persad, E.B. Court, D.K. Martin, A.S. Daar, et al. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Medicine 2(5): e97. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. 2007. Identifying ethical issues of nanotechnologies. In Nano-technologies, ethics and politics, ed. H.A.M.J. ten Have, 79–98. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treyer, S. 2007. Considering foresight as an intervention within an already existing future oriented debate: Renewing the approach for the design, implementation and evaluation of foresights? In Proceedings of the COST A22 conference, from oracles to dialogue; exploring new ways to explore the future, Athens, 9–11 July 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyshenko, M.G. (ed.). 2010. Special issue on nanotechnology and social cohesion. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological development. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, H. 2000. Forceful futures: From promise to requirement. In Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science, ed. N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster, 43–64. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merkerk, R.O., and D.K.R. Robinson. 2006. Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3): 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinck, D. 2010. The ‘enterprise of science’: Construction and reconstruction of social capital around nano R&D. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3): 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White House (Office of Press Secretary). 2000. National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. Available at: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000121_4.html. 20 aprile 2008.

  • Whitman, J. 2007. The challenge to deliberative systems of technological systems convergence. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 20(4): 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring, G. 2010. Nanoscale science and technology and social cohesion. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3): 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Law Decisions and Corporate Ethical Certification, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Simone Arnaldi

Authors
  1. Simone Arnaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Arnaldi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Bert Gordijn

  2. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

    Anthony Mark Cutter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arnaldi, S. (2014). Unlocking the Futures of Nanotechology. Future-Oriented Narratives and Access to the Public Discourse on Nanoscale. In: Gordijn, B., Cutter, A. (eds) In Pursuit of Nanoethics. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6817-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation