Introduction

The emergence of nanotechnologies has been accompanied from the outset by a strong call for intensive communication and engagement with ‘the public’. A principle common to all initiatives has been the recognition that society’s perception and understanding of nanotechnology is crucial [1, 2] and therefore needs to be taken into account from the very early stages of research and development [3, 4].

The dynamics of early public communication and engagement have taken different forms and have been motivated by different reasons [5]. For example, communication has been driven by demands for reflexivity and capacity building [6], awareness and promotion of the discipline [7, 8], enhancement of the democratic legitimacy of research processes, purposes, or outcomes [9], and prevention of potential barriers to technology acceptance [3, 4, 10]. Different models of nanoscience and nanotechnology communication currently coexist, configuring a heterogeneous set of communicative dynamics with different objectives and operating at different levels.

Those seeking to publicise or promote the wide range of disciplines and practices that encompass nanoscience and nanotechnology face a series of challenges. For example, many nanotechnologies are still in the early stages of development and, as such, are non-existent (especially in terms of the fascinating applications through which they are commonly envisioned and promoted). In addition to their eminently non-presentist character [11], nanotechnologies defy understanding because of their technical complexity and the ‘incredible tininess of nano’ [12]. These and many other reasons have led to the perception that there may be a communication gap with ‘the public(s)’, which is exacerbated when emphasis is placed on communication and engagement with younger generations (e.g. [8, 13]).

A growing body of literature has highlighted the various benefits of comics in stimulating imagination and learning, especially among young people inside and outside the classroom. Comics are expected to help broaden thematic knowledge and promote greater engagement with science (e.g. [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]). Although it is recognised that implementing comics as an educational and engagement tool requires appropriate mediation, this creative and communicative medium is seen as a fruitful resource for improving the meaning-making processes in science and technology (e.g. [22]). Despite the limited exploration of comics as a communication tool in the specific field of nanotechnology, there is support for the idea that comics can benefit specific target groups in several respects (e.g. [23, 24]).

Inspired by the creative potential of comics, several projects have been launched to develop and disseminate comic strips focusing on nanotechnology ‘superpowers’, particularly targeting middle- and high-school students. Examples include (i) Nano BlasterMan (2005), produced by the Taiwanese Ministry of Education; (ii) Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), produced as part of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project (2016–2017) and co-funded by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (see https://www.nanokomik.com); and (iii) the comic competition ‘Generation Nano! Superheroes Inspired by Science!’ (2017), funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Initiative of the United States (see http://nsf.gov/GenNano).

These projects are important not only for promoting scientific literacy but also for fostering ‘cultures of participation’ and disseminating representations that carry meanings about science and technology. However, no analysis has yet focused on these aspects. Existing studies on nano-comics and their associated projects have mainly considered the effectiveness of comics in promoting scientific literacy and social engagement with nanotechnologies.

This paper aims to diagnose the ‘culture of participation’ underlying the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project (2016–2017) and the representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology conveyed in its two resulting comic books: Dayanne and Murillo (2016) [25] and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) [26].Footnote 1 The central argument is that both the project’s ‘culture of participation’ and the meanings circulated in its comic books are functional in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology. On the one hand, the ‘culture of participation’ that informs the project is shown to be functional in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology by promoting non-binding and not very meaningful modes of public engagement. Rather than fostering genuine collaboration, it tends to steer the public towards the adoption of expert-led knowledge and narratives. On the other hand, the meanings circulated in the comics are shown to be functional in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology because they predominantly emphasise the practical benefits and practical virtues of (nano)science and (nano)technology and refrain from providing a significant problematisation of their development and risks. For example, the paper shows how the comics of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project convey an individualistic and linear vision of research and innovation and an instrumentalist and neutral (or ‘value-free’) view of technology.

Studies on the representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology have tended to focus on the perceptions and meanings transmitted by actors outside the scientific community (e.g. journalists, film-makers) or, more exceptionally, on the self-perceptions of nanoscientists. Here, however, the focus is on the representations that both communication specialists and nanoscientists co-construct and disseminate about (nano)technoscience. Although this paper presents a concrete case study and its findings are limited to the project at hand, it has a broader relevance because it reveals how ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ projects can express and perpetuate ways of framing science-society relations and the co-production of science and technology. By analysing the cultures of participation and the meanings circulated through such projects, the paper aligns with approaches such as Vision Assessment [28] and other related hermeneutic forms of Technology Assessment [29].

The structure of the article is as follows. The next section presents the context, the main objective, and the ‘culture of participation’ promoted by the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. This section also highlights the role of Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) comics not only as instruments for the dissemination and promotion of (nano)sciences but also as communication vehicles rich in socio-technical imaginaries, visions, and expectations regarding science and technology in general and nanosciences and nanotechnologies in particular (‘The “NanoKOMIK” Project: Cultures of Participation and the Circulation of Images About Nanoscience’). Next, the methodological approach used for the analysis of the representations present in the two comic books is presented: a qualitative variant of the content hermeneutic analysis (‘Methods’). The next section presents the results of the analysis and a brief discussion of the main findings. More specifically, this section presents the images regarding both (i) the processes of (nano)scientific and (nano)technological co-production and (ii) the products of these processes, and it tentatively explores some meanings that these representations might be communicating (‘Result and Discussion’). The article closes with a series of conclusions underlining the need to make representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology that permeate the various communication artefacts as an object of responsibility through critical-hermeneutic reflection (‘Conclusion’).

The ‘NanoKOMIK’ Project: Cultures of Participation and the Circulation of Images About Nanoscience

The ‘NanoKOMIK’ project is an interdisciplinary initiative developed in the years 2016 and 2017 by two scientific research centres: the nanoGUNE Cooperative Research Centre (CIC nanoGUNE) and the Donostia International Physics Centre (DIPC). These centres prioritise nanosciences and nanotechnologies in their areas of research.

The ‘NanoKOMIK’ project is based on the visionary idea that the possibilities opened up by nanoscience and nanotechnology ‘are endless and will have great repercussions in various sectors ranging from medicine to construction, generating important changes in our lifestyle’ ([30], p. 3). The aim of the project is to ‘make society aware of the advances that are being made in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology, in this way awakening the creativity of the younger generation’ ([30], p. 3). Described as a scientific outreach project, the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project was co-funded by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, Spanish Government) and involved a wide range of academic institutions, companies, and collaborating agents such as the Basque Government, the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, the University of Bordeaux, and the University of Barcelona, among others.

In early 2016, the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project team, coordinated by Itziar Otegui (responsible for communication and dissemination of the nanoGUNE) and Amaia Arregi (communication and dissemination specialists at the DIPC, and PhD in Material Sciences and Industrial Engineering), pursued its main objective through an innovative strategy involving the participatory production of a nano-fiction comic book. To attract participants, the team launched the ‘2016 Challenge’, which received a remarkable response. More than 190 people between the ages of 12 and 18 participated in this ‘free creative process’ [31], resulting in a collection of 102 comic stories. The comics submitted varied in length from one to four pages and were submitted in Basque, Spanish, and French languages. To further encourage participation, the team awarded prizes for the most creative comic strips and organised workshops for young students and their teachers at the beginning and end of the competition [31].

One of the main results of this ‘2016 Challenge’ is the first printed comic book entitled Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016). This comic book, consisting of seven episodes and nineteen pages in total, is claimed to be ‘[b]ased on the best ideas from the comics presented in response to the [2016] challenge’ ([25], p. 3). Dayanne and Murillo (2016) recounts the adventures of two nanoscientists, Dayanne and Murillo, who are the central characters of the comic. Their work in the research and development of nano-based artefacts is crucial to the comic’s plot. Each episode in the first volume can be read independently, although they are all connected in a linear narrative.

The success of the first experiment, the ‘2016 Challenge’, led to the launch of a second challenge in mid-2017: the ‘2017 Challenge’, which also focused on the creation of nano-fiction comics. Unlike the ‘2016 Challenge’, the ‘2017 Challenge’ was open to a wider and more diverse group of societal actors: Anyone over the age of 14 could participate. This change in eligibility criteria was aimed at attracting a broader audience and increasing the pool of potential participants. The call for participation was divided into two categories: one for young people aged 14–18 and another for adults over the age of 18. Participants could submit a maximum of two graphic stories each, either individually or as co-authors. The call was open to participants of all nationalities, although the language of presentation was limited to Basque, Spanish, French, or English. The ‘2017 Challenge’ offered a total of six prizes, five of which were awarded by a jury and one by the public [32]. A total of 240 participants submitted 70 comics for the ‘2017 Challenge’, comprising 57 submissions in the youth category and 13 in the adult category.

As with the successful outcome of the ‘2016 Challenge’, which resulted in the creation of Dayanne and Murillo (2016), the ‘2017 Challenge’ also yielded a second volume of comics entitled NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). This new volume was also claimed to be ‘based on the best ideas from the competition entries’ ([26], p. 3). More specifically, it was presented as being the result of collaboration between the project coordinators and three participants who were the ‘winners of the adult category of the nanoKOMIK 2017 challenge’ ([26], p. 3). In contrast to Dayanne and Murillo (2016), NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) presents three distinct graphic stories, each with twelve pages and unique characters and plots (Table 1).

Table 1 The 2016 and 2017 Challenges associated with the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. Sources: 2016 Challenge [31] and ([25], p. 3); 2017 Challenge [33] and ([26], p. 3). Elaborated by the author
Full size table

Although the representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology conveyed and reproduced by both Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) are a focal point of this article, it is worth briefly examining the culture of participation and collaboration that permeates and is reproduced by the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. The culture of participation and engagement that characterises the NanoKOMIK project can be understood by examining how the collaborations that purportedly led to the creation of both comic books were carried out. As noted above, both comic books are said to be based on the best ideas from the 2016 and 2017 Challenges. But to what extent is this inspiration manifest in the works produced?

Neither the NanoKOMIK website nor the comics provide explicit and detailed information about the level of inspiration. Therefore, in order to discern it, one should compare the scripts and images of Dayanne and Murillo (2016) [25] and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) [26] with the scripts and images of the comics submitted by the participants in response to the 2016 (see [31]) and 2017 (see [33]) Challenges. In doing so, it is hard to identify any ideas from the participants that may have directly inspired Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). While nanotechnology is a central theme in Dayanne and Murillo (2016), less than a third of the comics submitted in response to the ‘2016 Challenge’ make any reference to nano. This is understandable given that the participants were youngsters between the ages of 12 and 18 who may not be familiar with this emerging field. Therefore, the ideas presented in Dayanne and Murillo’s story and illustrations seem to have come mainly from the project’s teamwork and coordinators. Indeed, in the credits of Dayanne and Murillo (2016), the authorship of the comic script is attributed to Amaia Arregi (DIPC, project coordinator), Hodei Iparraguirre (freelance illustrator), and Itziar Otegui (CIC nanoGUNE, project coordinator), while the illustrations are attributed only to Hodei Iparraguirre (see [25], p. 2).

The comics submitted by participants in the ‘2017 Challenge’ show many more connections to nanotechnology compared to the previous Challenge, especially in the adult category (over 18 years) (see [33]).Footnote 2 This could be an indication of the greater familiarity and awareness of (nano)science and (nano)technology among adults as well as their higher level of scientific and technological literacy and understanding. Furthermore, the level of participation between the project coordinators and the selected adult participants in the creation of NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) seems to be higher, although this collaboration has certain limitations. As already mentioned, NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) consists of three episodes (Table 1). The first story in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), entitled ‘World domina(no)tion’, was written and drawn by Aśka, the first-prize winner of the ‘2017 Challenge’ (see [26], p. 4). However, the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project coordinators, Amaia Arregi and Itziar Otegui, had an influence on the development of the scripts for the remaining two stories. The illustration for the second episode, entitled ‘Mister flames’, was created by Jöse Sénder, while the script was developed by the project coordinators, Amaia Arregi and Itziar Otegui (see [26], p. 8). The third and final episode, entitled ‘Among plants’, was drawn by Rubén Molina, while the script was developed by him, Amaia Arregi, and Itziar Otegui (see [26], p. 12). In this sense, the participation of the coordinators continues to be essential in the preparation and direction of most of the comic book scripts and themes that make up this second volume.

All this highlights the following scenario: (i) only one of the ten episodes that make up the two comic books appears to have been created entirely by a participant; (ii) the coordinators are involved in the creation of scripts for nine episodes; (iii) the coordinators are the sole authors of the scripts for eight of the ten episodes; and (iv) there is no evidence to suggest that any of these eight scripts created solely by the coordinators were inspired by the comics submitted by participants in response to the 2016 and 2017 Challenges. The significant role played by the project coordinators in the creation of the scripts shows that the project is based on a culture of participation in which science communication specialists and scientific experts take a very active, top-down role in directing the participation and collaboration. The experts dictate the content while the social collaborators are mainly relegated to the role of adapting their illustrations. In fact, this dominant mode of participation in the project could be placed on the so-called ‘ladder of participation’ between tokenism (limited to informing participants which scripts to draw) and non-participation (see [34]).

This way of conceiving of ‘contribution’ and ‘collaboration’, especially with non-scientific actors, contrasts with recent developments in citizen science [35] and Responsible Research and Innovation [9] initiatives. The discourses and practices associated with these approaches call for greater openness in science and technology. In other words, this one-way approach to participation is weak compared to proposals that aim for significant social engagement, collaboration, and empowerment of different ways of knowing [36]. This suggests that the analytical and critical focus should not be limited to whether a project claims to be participatory or collaborative but also and especially to how collaboration is implemented and made effective (i.e. the division of labour promoted) [37]. This requires careful consideration of whether the voices of social actors are genuinely taken into account or merely instrumentalised (i.e. whether the labels of collaboration and participation are merely tools for promoting the social legitimacy of science).

While it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the collaborative culture of the NanoKOMIK project, we should not 'place the blame' on the project organisers and coordinators. The efforts made by the coordinators to bring nanoscience closer to young people are commendable, and the limitations in terms of collaboration mentioned above must be understood as overlapping with a number of highly contextual and contingent factors and commitments. Implementing a project of this scale is not easy and there is often considerable pressure to deliver and account for results. In addition, the fact that the target audience was quite young (especially in the initial challenge) may have contributed to a one-way approach to participation, as it requires considerable effort and knowledge to imagine the potential impacts of nanotechnology.

The high degree of involvement of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project coordinators in the development of the narratives of Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) is not only relevant in terms of making visible the culture of participation that permeates the project. It is also relevant for understanding at least four characteristics of the images and meanings contained in the two volumes that will be analysed in the following sections:

  1. 1)

    Although the episodes have a fictional character, each of them is imaginatively inspired by a scientific research article published in a peer-reviewed journal (this inspiration takes on a different degree of speculation in each of the stories);

  2. 2)

    The pictorial details of the laboratories and instruments used by the nanoscientists to research and produce the nano-based artefacts (see the ‘The Infrastructure/Materials and Places Where Research is Conducted’ section);

  3. 3)

    Each episode includes vignettes with technical explanations of how the different nano-based artefacts work. It should be noted that this type of technical explanation was absent from the comic strips submitted in response to the ‘2016 Challenge’ and was marginally present in the comic strips submitted in response to the ‘2017 Challenge’—the exceptions for the ‘2017 Challenge’ are the comics ‘Chitin!’, ‘Nanocristal’, and ‘Planckman’ (all submitted in the adult category)Footnote 3;

  4. 4)

    The clearly positive view of nanotechnology that exists in the episodes. The published comic stories are geared towards the promotion of an emerging technoscience rather than encouraging a critical and reflective engagement with it (see the ‘Results and Discussion’ section).

The extensive involvement of the coordinators in the development of the comic scripts renders the analysis of the images present in the comics particularly interesting. This analysis does not consist of a case study of the representations and meanings that non-scientific actors convey to the public (e.g. [38,39,40,41]) nor does it focus on the images and understandings that publics associate with nanotechnology (e.g. [42,43,44]). Furthermore, the analysis does not fixate solely on the representations that nanoscientists have of their own work (e.g. [45, 46]). Instead, it focuses on how science communication specialists and nanoscientists communicate meanings about (nano)technoscience to the public through comic strips and how these meanings can help to support and legitimise this field of research and innovation. In other words, the analysis aims to examine how science communication specialists and nanoscientists co-construct and disseminate images and meanings of nano to shape social actors’ perceptions and attitudes towards (nano)scientific work and how these images and meanings promote their research.

Indeed, this paper proposes to interpret the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and its two comic books as communicative artefacts of a performative nature in the service of modulating the perceptions and attitudes of the youngest audiences towards (nano)science and (nano)technology, arguably for the benefit of the social legitimation of these fields. The ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and its comics are interpreted as artefacts that reflect, contain, circulate, and reproduce images, visions, and expectations both about science-society relations (e.g. the ‘culture of participation’) and, in particular, about (nano)science and (nano)technology. Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) are interpreted as instruments (albeit modest ones) within a broad constellation of artefacts that compete to shape the orientation of the dynamics of the governance of science, technology, and innovation through the allocation of meanings [47]. In Armin Grunwald’s terms, the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and its comics are functional artefacts in the generation and maintenance of hermeneutic circles [48] around nano, enabling and reinforcing already ongoing meaning-making processes and/or hindering the emergence of alternative ones.

Despite their eminently fictitious nature, the socio-technical meanings embedded in representations can still influence the emergence of socio-material assemblages [49]. For example, they can spark public debates, shape opinions, draw attention to particular areas of research, mobilise resources, and reinforce pre-existing narratives about science and technology [50]. The extent to which these representations are successful in modulating social and material outcomes depends on a variety of factors, including their alignment with other socio-technical dynamics, and the degree of power that the creators and promoters of these representations wield within the network of actors in which they are situated.

This function of representations of (nano)technoscience as performative devices underlines the importance of subjecting them to critical and reflective assessment [28] and making them a target of interventive governance [51]. Recent developments in Science and Technology Studies and Technology Assessment have emphasised the need for ongoing, real-time analysis of the production and development of these images and visions in order to promote more reflective and responsible research and innovation ([9], pp. 1570–1571, [52], [53]). While the analysis in this article focuses on the content of the two published volumes Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), it is important to recognise that a comprehensive analysis of the role played by these communication artefacts would require an examination of their ongoing co-evolutionary processes. Among other domains, attention needs to be paid to the changing conditions and contexts in which they emerge and function and the ways in which they continually transform the socio-epistemic and political practices in which they operate [54]. Furthermore, while the meanings conveyed in the comics are significant, their reception, adoption, interpretation, and dissemination are contingent upon a variety of factors, and readers play an active rather than passive role in these processes. Therefore, while analysing the meaning of texts (or representations) in books, diagrams, oral presentations, and images is an important and instructive task, it is only a small part of the larger equation when it comes to identifying and intervening in ongoing hermeneutic circles and providing reflective and orientation knowledge [52, 55].

Methods

The analysis of the representations of science and technology contained in Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) was conducted following a hermeneutic approach to the texts. Hermeneutics involves interpreting the meaning and significance of texts as well as understanding the situatedness of the authors within their socio-spatial and historical contexts.

Hermeneutic exercises are part of normative approaches such as Vision Assessment and Hermeneutic Technology Assessment, which aim to identify and reflect ‘the societal meaning attached to new technology’ ([48], p. 2). This meaning is not confined to the knowledge currently available on the impacts of new technologies but also includes a series of other representations and attitudes which more or less explicitly influence the range of activities and dynamics governing the unruly, complex, and messy co-production of science and technology. Imaginaries, expectations, and visions about new technologies are a clear example of such representations that shape, and are shaped by, processes of meaning ascription. These representations contain values and descriptive elements about how a new technology could or should be and the social orders within which they are (or should be) functional.

These meanings are expressed in different ways and in different formats. They can be written texts (e.g. novels, company position papers, political programmes, and agendas), visual texts (e.g. illustrations of prototypes, scientific figures, or diagrams), or oral texts (e.g. presentations, performances) ([48], pp. 11–12).

In order to understand which themes and meanings are communicated through the comics within the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project, the hermeneutic content analysis (HCA) method was applied [56]. The HCA method can be considered an extended form of Content Analysis (CA), as it combines the flexible, systematic, and highly analytical and descriptive principles and techniques of CA (coding, categorising, systematising, and interpreting a text) [57,58,59] with understanding and reflection [60].

CA methods have traditionally been used in theology, philosophy, and social sciences, among others, to empirically analyse products and processes of social communication (whether recorded or ‘live’) in order to ‘interpret meaning from the content of text’ ([57], p. 1277). CA and hermeneutic methods are typically applied to communication outcomes materialised in original or transcribed texts such as newspaper articles, interviews, protocols, laws, books, pictorial artworks. However, they can also be applied to interaction processes ([61], p. 2), [62]. Among the main assumptions of CA methodologies and their various approaches is that the analysis of texts and meaningful processes can identify (at least part of) the conditions or assumptions on which their production was based, as well as the processes in which they (aim, can, could or will) affect.

Performing any type of CA involves, in one way or another, the use of hermeneutic tools and skills. CA requires interpretation and a series of inferential procedures, such as defining units of meaning and analysis, coding, and (re)constructing the context from which the text is interpreted. However, different interpretations can be made from varying angles and with different degrees of reflexivity. HCA aims to extend CA by explicitly acknowledging two key points: (i) that CA processes are influenced by the knowledge, values, and socio-historical context of the people conducting them, which allows for different analyses and meanings to be identified, and (ii) that the meanings of each code need to be understood in relation to the whole text and the production context from which the text originated [56].

HCA offers a range of approaches, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods and can be applied to diverse areas such as causal analysis and social network analysis. For this study, a qualitative and thematic approach to HCA has been chosen. The task is to identify the themes and associated meanings present in the two comic books produced by the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project, namely Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016) [25] and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) [26]. The identification of these meanings can serve both as a marker of the specific context in which the books were produced and as a resource for tentative assessment. It is important to note, however, that the type of analysis provided here is only one necessary but not sufficient step in the process of elucidating the hermeneutic circles or dynamics that these comics may feed, reproduce, reinforce or enable. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of these representations and how they are adopted, interpreted, and disseminated by readers in different contexts.

This article focuses on the rationale of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and the meanings conveyed in the associated comic books. Therefore, the claims made in this study are limited to these aspects of the project, and the author refrains from making inductive inferences from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project to other potentially similar projects or comics. The article diagnoses that the culture of participation articulated in the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and the meanings about nano that the comics convey are functional in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology. This is because the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project reproduces limited modes of participation and collaboration, and its comics reinforce predominantly favourable meanings for the nanotechnology project.

A five-step analysis process was adopted:

Step I. Initial contact. First, a general overview of the selected material to be analysed—i.e. the two volumes that resulted from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project: Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017)—was conducted. The aim was to become familiar with the contents and to map general themes of the comic strips.

Step II. Trial coding. This second stage consisted in conducting an initial trial coding of the themes, messages, or content present in the texts of the published comics (whether written, iconic, or mixed). The codification of themes and data management were executed using the analysis software NVivo Release 1.0. More specifically, NVivo was used (i) to manually code and hierarchically structure the themes and references of interest identified in the comic strips in their corresponding coding categories and (ii) to enable their visualisation and subsequent analysis in an orderly manner. Each of the episodes comprising the comics has been taken as a unit of analysis.

The coding process was conducted using a purely inductive (or bottom-up) approach. This implies that the coding categories that designate the themes of the text emerged de novo and in real time during the iterative process of reading and analysis—i.e. following what Krippendorff describes as a hermeneutic-interactive exploration process ([63], pp. 303–307).

Step III. Segmentation and anchoring of coding categories. At this stage, all the trial codes or analysis categories generated during step II were assessed, synthesised, and restructured in a hierarchical manner. This step is necessary for the standardisation of the units of analysis and to avoid overlap or duplication between the codes used and generated.

The iterative process of analysis, generation, definition, restructuring, and evaluation of the coding categories resulted in the following hierarchical coding map structure:

  1. A.

    The techno-scientific research processes. The text includes representations about researchers and/or research life:

    1. a.

      Images of the scientists

      i. The lone scientist

      ii. Self-perception/presentation of the scientist as a genius

      iii. The scientist’s outfit

    2. b.

      The individual/group characteristics of the scientific activity

      i. Collaborative

      ii. Interpersonal competition

      iii. Seeking recognition from the community

    3. c.

      The infrastructure/materials and places where research is conducted

      i. Places and types of laboratories

      ii. Research instruments

  2. B.

    The techno-scientific research results. The text includes representations about (nano)innovations:

    1. a.

      Revolutionary nanoscience. Nanoscience is presented as a revolutionary technoscientific field

    2. b.

      Nano-based artefacts. The text mentions an artefact with some of its functions enabled by nanostructures

    3. c.

      The nano-based artefact is ‘investigated’ and ‘produced’ in the laboratory. The text depicts that the artefacts are both investigated and produced in the lab

    4. d.

      Explanations of the technical basis of nano-based artefacts. The texts contain explanations of how nano-based artefacts work

      i. Nature as inspiration. Naturally formed nanostructures are understood as an object of inspiration and to be mimicked through nanomanufacturing

    5. e.

      Risks. The potential risks of nano-based artefacts are depicted in the text

    6. f.

      A nano-based artefact is used to solve a problem. Artefacts are presented as means for solving a problem

Step IV. Main coding. The previous and definitive code hierarchy was uniformly applied to the two printed collections of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. The coding was carried out manually and mediated by the software NVivo R1.

Step V. Results analysis. The above coding led to the series of findings that are presented and discussed in the following section.

Results and Discussion

The analysis of Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) revealed a series of representations or images that permeate both comic books. These images relate to the image of science in general and nanoscience in particular, with some representations referring to research and development processes (see the ‘Images About Processes of (Nano)technoscience Research and Development’ section) and others to their results and products (see the ‘Images About the Products of (Nano)technoscience’ section). These images are present in the texts (written, iconic, or mixed) that comprise the two comic books.

All comic strips in the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project follow a common structural pattern when presenting their stories. After introductory vignettes, usually depicting nanoscientists, a nanotechnological artefact produced by them becomes essential to resolving and concluding the central story. Furthermore, all comic strips participate in the general narrative established by the call for participation in the two NanoKOMIK Challenges (2016 and 2017), namely that nanoscience and nanotechnology enable the production of artefacts with different ‘super-functionalities’. Table 2 provides a summary of each episode’s storyline, main themes, nano-based artefacts, locations, and research instruments for nanoscience.

Table 2 Main characteristics of the episodes that compose the two volumes resulting from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. Elaborated by the author
Full size table

For organisational reasons, the themes and meanings associated with the dimensions of nano research processes and their results presented in the comic books are separately analysed and discussed. It should be noted, however, that these dimensions and their themes are closely linked, and the relationship between the whole and the parts must always be considered to understand the socio-technical meanings that the two comic books could mobilise.

The discussion of each of the themes related to research and innovation processes (see the ‘Images About Processes of (Nano)technoscience Research and Development’ section) and their outcomes and products (see the ‘Images About the Products of (Nano)technoscience’ section) is intended to highlight the underlying meanings and the potential functions that some of them may serve in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology.

Images About Processes of (Nano)technoscience Research and Development

With regard to the images associated with the process of nanoscience research and development, it was observed that the texts made reference to three general sub-themes: (a) the images of the scientists, (b) the individual or group nature of the research, and (c) the infrastructure/material and places where the research was conducted.

The Images of the Scientists

All popular culture (e.g. films, novels, comics, sitcoms) that refers to scientific activities includes representations of its main actors: the scientists [74]. These representations of scientists in popular culture, which are often highly stereotyped [75], convey meanings about science and scientists that may influence the attitudes and perceptions of science and its relationships and roles within society.

One of the themes particularly prominent in the episodes analysed concerns the scientist as a person working on his own creations in a particularly solitary way. In fact, seven out of the ten chapters analysed explicitly present innovations or nano-based artefacts as products of the scientist’s own work—all of the scientists, moreover, are white and with a male to female ratio of 5:2. Although there are indeed a few vignettes in which it can be observed that scientific activity has a collaborative character rooted in a specific community (see the ‘The Individual or Group Nature of the Scientific Activity’ section), the vast majority of scientists are portrayed as being absorbed in their professional activities in a solitary manner.

For example, the first chapter of Dayanne and Murillo. The power of nanoscience (2017) begins with a scenario in which Murillo, a nanoscientist, apologises for not being able to go for a coffee break because ‘science’s mysteries’ are keeping him very busy (e.g. see [25], pp. 4 and 13). In fact, all the chapters in Dayanne and Murillo (2016) (with the exception of chapter 7, ‘Lethal punch’) begin with its protagonist working in solitude and usually sitting in front of technical equipment. In NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), this is particularly apparent in the stories ‘World domina(no)tion’ and ‘Among plants’. For instance, the researcher in ‘World domina(no)tion’ lives in isolation in a type of castle on a mountain and the scientist in ‘Among plants’ works alone deep in the jungle.

This image of the individualistic and solitary scientist, focused on his or her work, is particularly evident in the attribution of authorship of the research process and its results. Of the thirteen nano-based artefacts that appear in the two comic books, there are two where the inventor is not revealed (the guns that shoot nanoparticles presented in ‘Lethal punch’ and ‘Among plants’). Of the remaining eleven, ten were created by individual scientists working alone in their laboratories (see the ‘The Nano-based Artefact is ‘Investigated’ and ‘Produced’ in the Laboratory’ section). Only the high-quality graphene suit (‘Diamond in the rough’) seems to be the result of a collaborative effort. However, this collaboration is not simultaneous but sequential: Murillo first develops a cape, then Dayanne perfects it and transforms it into a suit. Real-time collaboration is only present in the testing process of this product. Although some social interaction with other scientists occurs throughout the stories, scientific and technological production itself is revealed to be a particularly individualistic and solitary activity.

These images which emphasise the autonomy of scientific researchers are combined with other images in which scientists present themselves as geniuses or as having superpowers (see [25], pp. 4 and 13). More specifically, the image of the scientist as a genius and a loner is explicitly found in three of the ten chapters of Dayanne and Murillo (2016): ‘Stuck’, ‘Small but deadly’, and ‘Diamond in the rough’.

The history of science is generally communicated and understood under the influences of a predominantly modern or illustrated image of science [76]: scientific and technological advances produced by great scientists, ‘the geniuses of science’. Nevertheless, and although there are concrete examples in history which partially support the idea of the scientist as a genius and a loner, several studies show how science (especially contemporary science) is an activity which involves or is co-produced by a large number of actors who are not necessarily recognised or considered as geniuses—while not denying the role that some individuals may have played [77,78,79,80]. Eric Scerri, for example, highlights how the breakthroughs made by great personalities and laureates in the field of science were possible thanks to a number of achievements by different research groups and scientists. These scientists, who have been less fortunate when it comes to reconstructing the history of science, are what Scerri calls ‘the little people’ [81].

The comic books present the research life of these ‘little people’, some of whom nevertheless consider themselves to be geniuses of science: a genius characterised in terms of technological production, i.e. in terms of individual research and development of an artefact thanks to their creativity and their knowledge of nanoscience. It is the knowledge of nanoscience and its practical applicability that seem to empower the ingenuity of the individual scientist. In Dayanne and Murillo (2016), there is not one great ‘genius’ but several, and they all owe it to the ‘power of nanoscience’ to produce certain artefacts.

In this way, comics may act as a vehicle through which some of the deep-rooted stereotypes about scientists in our popular culture are reproduced [74, 82, 83]. Not only do these pictures convey an erroneous or illusory image and understanding of scientific and innovative enterprises (which are de facto a highly social and multi-actor activity) and scientists (not all of them are geniuses or perceive themselves as such) [84]; such images can also be counterproductive in giving meaning and value to scientific activity—irrespective of whether the intended effect of the comic books is to promote and legitimise nanosciences and nanotechnologies (see [85, 86]).

A third theme present in the comic stories, alluding to the images and perceptions about scientists, relates to their clothing. Scientists are most often depicted wearing white coats. While the use of white coats originated in operating theatres, laboratories, and modern hospitals, they have been worn by doctors for more than a century and are generally regarded as a symbol of authority, respect, and purity [87]. On the one hand, whiteness often seems to be associated with a sense of purity. White coats represent physicians’ commitment to help people and to do no harm. On the other hand, the potentially attributable sense of respect and authority may be associated with the possession of knowledge and the ability to change the state of affairs (e.g. experimentation in the case of physics, the protection and healing of patients in the case of medicine) (see [88, 89]).

The image of the white-coated scientist is a common theme in nine of the ten chapters or stories that constitute the two comic books (the exception is ‘Lethal punch’). Dayanne and Murillo (2016) also display a number of other types of uniforms, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and safety glasses, particularly in the chapter ‘Gymkhana’.

The Individual or Group Nature of the Scientific Activity

Representations of the scientist as a solitary worker are part of a myth-conception [90] of scientific activity and technological progress that emphasises the work and genius of the individual. Indeed, in many vignettes, the artefacts produced by individuals (thanks to their knowledge of nanosciences) are presented as works of unique authorship: they are conceived as individual creations (e.g. see [25], pp. 4 and 13).

As mentioned above, the comics feature five male and two female nanoscientist protagonists. However, when examining the representation of individual technological creation processes, it becomes clear that the two comic books deliberately and positively balance the genders. Both books feature an almost equal number of artefacts created by female and male nanoscientists (see Table 2). It is important to recognise that this equal distribution does not fully reflect the persistent inequalities and biases that often exist in science and innovation systems (see [91,92,93]). Nevertheless, gender balance in representation can have a positive performative function, especially when considering its potential impact on attracting young female audiences to science careers. The balanced gender representation in the two comic books can be attributed to the conscientious division of labour during the coordination of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and the development of the story scripts, which were arguably thoughtfully and mainly shaped by the creative visions of Amaia Arregi and Itziar Otegui, as explained in ‘The “NanoKOMIK” Project: Cultures of Participation and the Circulation of Images About Nanoscience’.

Although the processes of research and innovation are portrayed as eminently individualistic in most of the stories, these activities are presented within a predominantly social context in all chapters and narratives (with the exception of ‘World domina(no)tion’ and ‘Among plants’ in NanoKOMIK #2). The analysis of the two comic books shows three types of social relations that scientists cultivate in social contexts: those characterised by interpersonal competition, those marked by cooperation between scientists, and those focused on the search for recognition within the scientific community.

The theme of competition between individual scientists is central to Dayanne and Murillo (2016). In fact, six out of seven chapters (all except ‘Lethal punch’) include at least one vignette in which the existence of competition between the protagonists can be observed. The narration of the first six chapters evolves thanks to a degree of healthy competition between Dayanne and Murillo. By challenging each other, they constantly try to surprise and surpass their colleague with fresh nanotechnology-based artefacts. This image of healthy individual competition between scientists is, however, absent in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017).

Interpersonal competition exists de facto in scientific activity and is generally regarded as a driving force for science. However, it is also acknowledged that this competence has its shadowy sides (e.g. hoarding research data, sabotaging the work of others, being disloyal, etc.) [94]. The comics of the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project contain depictions of both its positive and negative facets. On the positive side, Dayanne and Murillo’s continuous attempts to surpass each other push them to advance in their research and to create their artefacts. On the more negative side, the first chapter (‘Stuck’) shows how Dayanne, envious of Murillo’s gecko glove, throws it at the ceiling causing it to get stuck (out of his reach). Similarly, in the chapter ‘Small but deadly’, Dr. Ramirez refuses to give Murillo a sample of his nanoantidote on the grounds that it is his own creation (see [25], pp. 4 and 13).

Although competitive relationships permeate much of the narrative in the chapters (and much of it with a positive outlook), there are also representations of other types of relationships, such as the existence of collaboration and cordiality among scientists. Beyond the representations of scientists meeting each other in the corridors and enjoying coffee breaks, there are also representations of collaboration in relation to the achievement of specific objectives (e.g. research and problem solving, improving and/or testing the effectiveness of technological artefacts).

Of the ten chapters that compose the two books, four of them (and all in Dayanne and Murillo) include images of collaboration in some of their vignettes: ‘Gymkhana’, ‘Small but deadly’, ‘Diamond in the rough’, and ‘Lethal punch’ (Table 2). However, each of these chapters or stories alludes to the idea of cooperation from different perspectives. Whereas in ‘Gymkhana’ the collaboration is between two scientists not involved in the storyline who work together to study samples of nanoparticles, in the remaining three chapters, the collaboration is between Dayanne and Murillo in order to save the lizard that serves as a study sample for the production of the ‘gecko gloves’ (‘Small but deadly’), to help develop and test the high-quality graphene suit (‘Diamond in the rough’), and to prevent the death of the participants in a nanotechnology conference (‘Lethal punch’). The collaboration is thus credited with predominantly positive motivations and results.

Finally, throughout the different chapters or stories, reference is made to nanoscientists who are seeking recognition from the scientific community. Recognition by the scientific community is a crucial relationship between the community and the individual, and it is critical for the advancement of a researcher’s career. The quest for recognition permeates various activities in the scientific enterprise, from the routines within a research group or department to the communication of results at conferences or the publication of results in specialised journals.

The theme of the scientists’ quest for recognition in the ‘NanoKOMIK’ comics can be found in the vignettes of three episodes: in ‘Diamond in the rough’ and ‘Lethal punch’ in Dayanne and Murillo (2016), and in ‘World domina(no)tion’ in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). In ‘Diamond in the rough’, for example, Murillo shows his satisfaction with the success of the high-quality graphene suit he produced in collaboration with Dayanne and declares: ‘Just in time for the conference… We’re sure to blow them away!’ ([25], p. 15; emphasis added). This vignette shows how scientists seek recognition and admiration from their peers. In addition, it should be noted that this vignette suggests that the conference presentation will be centred on the artefact (and not so much the theoretical advances per se), which denotes the broad pragmatic and technology-oriented meaning attributed to nanoscience (see [95]; the ‘Nano-based Artefacts’ section).

By contrast, in ‘Lethal punch’, a frustrated effort to be recognised by the scientific community leads to an attempt at revenge. Professor Jules von Lavern, who suddenly appears at a conference on nanotechnology, states: ‘Ever since the scientific community labelled all my research as lies, I’ve only been searching for one thing… REVENGE!’ ([25], p. 19). His revenge consists of poisoning the assistants, stealing their innovations and publishing them as his own. This vignette not only suggests that the scientific community maintains certain ethical and epistemic criteria when accepting its membersFootnote 4 or that significance is placed on the nano-based artefacts (and not the knowledge that enabled their production); it also contains meanings about the frustration that scientists feel when their work is not recognised by their community.

Finally, ‘World domina(no)tion’ begins its narrative with a vignette showing how some scientists, despite being acknowledged by the scientific community, are excluded from the productive force for reasons such as funding cuts. In this way, the image conveys that recognition is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the development of a scientific career. Other elements, such as funding, are also important. The plot of this episode (see Table 2) shows how funding cuts can make it difficult for scientists to develop their vocation, leading them to ‘sell their knowledge/innovations’ to the wrong type of people (in this case, to corrupt politicians). This narrative could subtly shift the individual technological (ir)responsibility of scientists by focusing on factors and decisions outside their area of influence, such as limited funding for techno-scientific research and development. The key message is that if the nanoscientist decided to sell her nano-device to a corrupt malefactor, it was because she somehow had to make a living due to the lack of funding for science (see [25], p. 4).

The Infrastructure/Materials and Places Where Research is Conducted

The activities conducted by scientists take place not only in social spaces, but also within an artefactual and material network. The concept of ‘socio-technical network’ is typically used in Science and Technology Studies and aims to capture the materiality of infrastructures and technical objects in the constitution of (scientific) reality [96].

Nanoscientific and nanotechnological activity, due to the technical characteristics of its object of study and manipulation, is developed in socio-technical networks composed of sophisticated instruments. The two comic books produced within the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project, in particular Dayanne and Murillo (2016), comprehensively reflect this reality by showing different places as well as the instruments and infrastructures in which nanoscientists develop their activity.

The stories developed in Dayanne and Murillo (2016) mainly take place in one location: ‘Nanotech’, a nanotechnology research centre. However, within this centre, different areas are represented: the cleanroom, the supercomputer centre, and the deposition and nanoptics laboratories (for a breakdown of these places by episode, see Table 2). In addition, ‘Lethal punch’ presents one of the places where scientists exchange knowledge, build networks or collaborate and contribute to the shaping of their discipline: conference sites (see [97]).

Less rich in this descriptive sense are the stories developed in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). Here, two of the stories take place in what appears to be the isolated house of the scientists (‘World domina(no)tion’ and ‘Among plants’) and a laboratory established in a research centre (‘Mister flames’).

The emphasis on places such as the laboratory, as well as the approach of the scientist as an individual, however, misses other important places where nanoscientific and technological research and innovation are strongly present, such as the business and industrial sector.

The instruments depicted in the two comic books also acquire a certain variety, most of which are concentrated in Dayanne and Murillo (2016). Both Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017) show how nanoscientists use instruments such as scanning electron microscopes (SEM), ultra-high vacuum (UHV) systems (e.g. UHV-deposition system—electron beam evaporator), microscopes, micropipettes, test tubes, test tube racks, scanning tunnelling microscopies (STM), (super-)computers, and high-power laser beamlines (for a breakdown by episode, see Table 2).

Images About the Products of (Nano)technoscience

In addition to depicting (nano)scientific activities, the comics also convey interesting images and meanings about products made possible by nanoscience. The six main sub-themes relating to the products of (nano)technoscience found in the two comic books are described and discussed below: (a) revolutionary nanoscience, (b) nano-based artefacts, (c) the nano-based artefact is ‘researched’ and ‘produced’ in the laboratory, (d) explanations of the technical basis of nanotechnology-based artefacts, (e) risks, and (f) the nano-based artefact is used to solve a problem.

Revolutionary Nanoscience

One of the much debated and widely attributed meanings of nanotechnology refers to nanotechnology as ‘revolutionary’ because of the multiple utilities that nanotechnological products can provide [98,99,100]. The idea of nanotechnology as a revolution is only made explicit in written form in a comic panel (the one depicted in [25], pp. 4 and 13). However, all the stories are directly or indirectly aligned with the view that nanoscience enables the control of the structure of matter and that this capacity to control enables a new set of ‘super-functionalities’ or superpowers. The revolutionary character of nanotechnology is evident in the nanoscientific artefacts and their respective functionalities.

In this way, the NanoKOMIK volumes tie in with what has been called the ‘programmatic vision’ [101] of nanotechnology. This ‘programmatic vision’ can be found in early documents on nanotechnology such as Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom (1999) and National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution (2000) in the USA as well as European Union Research Drives Nanotechnology Revolution (2002) and Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology (2004) in Europe. These discourses that present nanoscience and its products as potentially revolutionary can also be found in other regions, such as India and China (see [102]). The vision of ‘nano-revolution’ has been an important rhetorical resource to provide momentum to nanotechnology by attracting attention and allocating investment opportunities. In particular, the idea of ‘nano-revolution’ was taken up and disseminated both in the natural sciences and engineering (with a special focus on the scientific and technical development of ‘nano’) and in the social sciences and humanities (with a special focus on ethical and socio-political issues and a more reflexive and inclusive development of nanotechnologies).

Nano-based Artefacts

As noted in the previous sub-section, the concept of a ‘nano-revolution’ in the NanoKOMIK comics is centred on the ‘super-functionality’ of the nano-based artefacts. Nanoscience and nanotechnology are portrayed as enabling novel modes of controlling and interacting with matter, thus allowing new or enhanced functions to be inscribed into existing or new artefacts. The ‘super-functionality’ of the artefacts presented embodies and reinforces the promises and potentials of nanoscience and nanotechnology, drawing attention to their instrumental virtues. While the nanoscientists play a critical role in the stories, it is ultimately the artefacts they create that harness the power of nano and lead to a happy ending for each episode or story.

This artefact-centred, substantive approach to technologies presents them as fundamentally instrumental, subtly reducing them to mere tools with practical affordances. Technological progress is framed primarily in terms of the production of artefacts that offer new and improved functionalities, with nanotechnology being seen as a significant milestone for its capacity to enable ‘super-functionalities’. This instrumental and material approach to technologies has been criticised for its limited perspective, overlooking questions related to the meanings and relational aspects of scientific and technological co-production [103].

The two NanoKOMIK comic books feature a total of thirteen nano-based artefacts that perform a variety of functions in different contexts. The nanomaterials that comprise the various artefacts are depicted as enabling a range of super-functions, from increasing adhesion, reducing friction, and improving the resistance of objects, to increasing the effectiveness of disease-fighting measures, performing synthetic photosynthesis, and amplifying our sense of smell. In a more speculative approach, and in line with transhumanist discourse, nanotechnology is presented even as having the potential to overcome the limitations of the human condition by enabling omnipresence (see Table 2). The diversity of functions and domains in which nanotechnology is presented adds another layer of meaning to the concept of ‘super-functionality’: pervasiveness. Nanotechnology is portrayed as a cross-cutting enabler and a ‘technology platform’ [104], encouraging readers to imagine the myriad possibilities that nano-based artefacts could unlock. The underlying vision in the comics analysed is that nanoscience and nanotechnology will lead to substantial and diverse improvements in our lives and will have a significant impact on various sectors such as materials production, medicine, energy, and sustainability.

However, this ‘revolutionary’ character of the properties made possible by nanotechnology contrasts with the relative ordinariness and accessibility of most of the objects in which these ‘novel’ and ‘super-functional’ properties are realised or embedded. With the exception of ‘World domina(no)tion’ in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), where the artefacts are nanodevices anchored to neural synapses, the objects in which the ‘super-functionalities’ manifest are very mundane. Far from showing grandiose visions and properties in speculative objects such as self-replicating nanorobots, half of the nanoscale artefacts in the comics are presented in the form of clothing (gloves, costumes or masks). The presentation of the various qualities of nanomaterials in highly recognisable and familiar objects can be read in the light of the target audience of these works: the general public and in particular younger people.

The Nano-based Artefact is ‘Investigated’ and ‘Produced’ in the Laboratory

Among the thirteen nano-based artefacts depicted in the plots of the two comic books, six can be explicitly visualised as being researched and developed in the laboratory (six of the ten chapters depict this theme). The largely individualistic view of scientific practice is thus coupled with an image of scientists researching and then producing their own artefacts in the laboratory.

In addition to reducing the complexity of scientific and technological research and production (both in terms of the processes and actors involved), more than half of the episodes explicitly reproduce a linear image of technological production and innovation: the scientist conducts research in the field of nanoscience, instrumentally oriented towards the production of certain technologies, and the same scientist develops and uses them. The scientist as an individual is thus positioned as the central and unique actor and the centre of the research and development process.

This conventional linear model of technological innovation contrasts with the factual complexity of the processes and actors involved in the contingent, messy, and unruly socio-technical assemblages that co-produce and shape technological development (see [105, 106]). The assemblages of co-production include private and public (groups of) actors, such as political institutions, universities, businesses, industry, insurance companies, NGOs, users, laws, and regulations. These entities establish evolving relationships with each other and continuously influence the broad innovation process, from conception to use and implementation.

In addition to oversimplifying the complexity of actors and processes that define and shape innovation, the linear and researcher-centred image of nanotechnology development has implications for envisioning alternative possibilities for nanotechnology governance. For example, it may hinder the recognition and consolidation of more inclusive meanings of scientific practice, in which a wider range of actors, whose voices have traditionally gone unheard within the realm of scientific activity, could influence the processes and outcomes of scientific activity and the purposes to which they are directed. In other words, these ‘myth-conceptions’ may hinder the call for the democratisation of science and technology.

Explanations of the Technical Basis of Nano-based Artefacts

In contrast to traditional science outreach activities, which are often criticised for being unidirectional and based on the so-called ‘deficit model’, ‘NanoKOMIK’ has a different objective. Instead of focusing on informing or explaining the theoretical basis of nanotechnology, its main aim is to demonstrate the potential technological applicability of this knowledge. The emphasis is not so much on promoting the new theoretical milestones in nanoscience but rather on highlighting their value in imparting potentially useful properties to a wide range of objects. The model of scientific dissemination used in the two ‘NanoKOMIK’ books aligns with the modus operandi that characterises the nanosciences: research practices in the nanosciences often aim at a specific applicability. This practical orientation provides not only the political legitimacy to support nanoresearch practices with public funds, but also the epistemic legitimacy (e.g. it is not just the production of knowledge per se that is valued but also the production of knowledge that is ‘useful’ for specific application contexts).

Each of the episodes includes illustrations of how the nano-based artefacts—with the exception of the iron oxide nanoparticles in ‘Lethal punch’—acquire the functionalities ascribed to them. One of the remarkable features of these illustrations is that they reveal relevant information about what inspired the design of the nanoparticle-based artefacts. Specifically, five of the thirteen artefacts depicted in the comic books are shown to be inspired by nature. The main idea is that some of these objects are constructed by a process of mimicking natural nanostructures or nanosystems found in animals and plants, thus reproducing the properties (or even processes, such as photosynthesis in ‘Among plants’) of living beings (see [107, 108]). The vision conveyed could be that the capacity of nanotechnologies is not simply to control nature, but to imitate it through this control (e.g. see [25], pp. 7 and 11).

Risks

In the comics studied, there was only one vignette in which the question of the risks of nanotechnology artefacts was found. More precisely, in the episode ‘Back to the origins’ (in Dayanne and Murillo), there is mention of a ‘hard impact’ that the extended metal claw could have: it is not sufficiently controlled by its user and damages its surroundings. However, this risk is presented as perfectly controllable and typical of a prototype that ‘still needs a little adjusting’ ([25], p. 9).

Concerns about the safety of nano-based artefacts are therefore not a recurring theme in the ‘NanoKOMIK’ comics. For example, only two episodes relate to product testing: ‘Diamond in the rough’ (Dayanne and Murillo) and ‘World domina(no)tion’ (NanoKOMIK #2). In ‘Diamond in the rough’, the tests are carried out with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of the nano-based artefact. In ‘World domina(no)tion’, the nanoscientist considers starting the test to assess the feasibility of her nano-based artefact. However, this last test does not take place because of external pressure to speed up the production of the artefact. No safety-test issues are raised.

The almost complete absence of references to risks is a key aspect that highlights the comics’ strong promotional orientation. The preceding sub-section, which showed how some of the nano-based artefacts produced were created by imitating nanostructures already existing in nature, could be related to the absence of texts on the risks of these artefacts. The idea that many nano-based artefacts imitate existing structures in nature could be interpreted as a rhetorical resource whose main function is to circumvent the problem of the great uncertainty about the risks that nanomaterials constitutively entail. One could wrongly conclude that if these structures already exist in nature, there is no need to worry about the possible risks of their reproduction.

Nano-based Artefacts are Used to Solve a Problem

The last of the relevant themes identified in the ‘NanoKOMIK’ comics relates to the way in which nano-based artefacts are used. The results show a certain ambivalence in this respect: while most of the artefacts are seen in a positive light as instruments that help to solve a problem, some of the stories seem to reproduce a neutral image of the technology.

On the one hand, a recurring image in the comics is that artefacts are a useful source of problem solving. Of the thirteen artefacts presented, eight are used to solve a problem present in the stories (all except the swimming costume with superhydrophobic nanostructures, the invisibility suit, the high-quality graphene suit, and the photosynthetic nano-hybrid devices).

For example, in Dayanne and Murillo (2016), the bee venom nanoparticle is used as a drug delivery vehicle to save the life of a lizard (episode: ‘Small but deadly’), just as the gecko gloves, the extendible metal claw, the nose-mask, and the iron oxide nanoparticles are used to save the participants of a nanotechnology conference from fatal poisoning (episode: ‘Lethal punch’). Likewise, in NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), the flame-retardant suit and the nano-silica foam projectors are used to save the astronauts from a rocket fire (episode: ‘Mister flames’) and the nano-devices attached to the synapses of neurons ensure that a corrupt politician gets what she deserves (episode: ‘World Domination(s)’).

What is interesting in this context is not only whether the artefacts were used to solve a problem, but also whether they were created for this purpose and by whom they were used. With regard to the first point, of the eight artefacts used to solve a problem, only two were designed and created to solve the ultimate problem for which they were used (the flame-retardant suit and the nano-silica foam projectors). The remaining six were not specifically designed to solve the problem but their functionality allowed for a solution to be found. Concerning the second point, it is the nanoscientists who used the artefacts and solved the existing problem. This last aspect reinforces the diagnosis of the protagonism of individual scientists highlighted in the ‘Images About Processes of (Nano)technoscience Research and Development’ section as well as the reductionist image of scientific production revealed in the ‘The Nano-based Artefact is ‘Investigated’ and ‘Produced’ in the Laboratory’ section. Artefacts are ‘investigated’, produced, tested, and used (mainly for useful purposes) by a (nano)scientist; scientists are the only actors in the whole process of innovation and technological development.

On the other hand, and in the context of a predominantly instrumental (positive) view of nano-based artefacts, there are two references in the comic books that could suggest a neutral image of (nano)technology (i.e. it is an instrument that can be used for good or evil, depending on how social actors use it). These two references can be found in ‘Lethal punch’ from Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and ‘World domina(no)tion’ from NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). In the first, Jules von Lavern threatens to turn the very nano-based artefacts that helped save the conference participants into ‘instruments of torture’ (see [25], p. 19). In the second, a nano-based artefact that might have a different set of functions is presented as being used for corruption after falling into the hands of a corrupt politician.

This subtle image of technology as value-neutral can be read as a conceptual and discursive resource that shifts responsibility from the developers (here the scientists) to the users. Numerous studies have highlighted and challenged this neutral image of science and technology, showing how there are (more or less implicit) values in the processes of technological design and development (and not only in the use of the object itself) and how technologies play a moralising role in the way we relate to and act in our environment (e.g. [109,110,111,112]).

The previous analysis and reflection on the themes of (nano)development processes (see the ‘Images About Processes of (Nano)technoscience Research and Development’ section) and their products (see the ‘Images About the Products of (Nano)technoscience’ section), as found in Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017), aimed to draw attention to their underlying meanings and to identify the potential functions that these volumes could play in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology.

The analysis revealed that the comics reproduce the promises and visions that circulated around nanotechnology during its emergence to legitimise its development. Nanoscience and nanotechnology are depicted as revolutionary fields of research, and the concept of ‘super-functionality’ plays a significant role in this regard.

Another important aspect in the legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology is the representation of nano-based instruments as artefacts that are researched and produced in the laboratory. This reflects a linear conception of technology and innovation. This conception plays a key role in securing research funding: the idea is that more research leads to more technology, which in turn contributes to improving socio-economic welfare and/or solving various problems (see the ‘Nano-based Artefacts are Used to Solve a Problem’ section), thus increasing social and financial support for research.

Furthermore, the comics present an artefact-centred approach and portray artefacts as neutral entities. Discourses that present technology as neutral shield it from problematisation and shift responsibility from researchers and developers to users. Indeed, the lack of significant problematisation of risks (see the ‘Risks’ section) and the constant appeal to nature as an inspiration (see the ‘Explanations of the Technical Basis of Nano-based Artefacts’ section) can be interpreted as narrative resources that contribute to the social legitimisation of science and technology.

In light of the above, it is necessary to subject projects such as ‘NanoKOMIK’ to critical analysis and to examine the frames and meanings they convey. This scrutiny is essential to question their role in reinforcing promises and shielding science and technology from necessary critical scrutiny. The circulation of these meanings goes beyond issues of scientific literacy or misinformation; it perpetuates ‘myth-conceptions’ and meanings about science and technology that protect the latter from broader socio-political scrutiny and prevent open critique, while blindly advocating their development. It is, of course, trivial to accuse a comic book of oversimplification and exaggeration. Nevertheless, these comics carry meanings of nanoscience and nanotechnology that align with and reinforce certain hermeneutical circles that favour the social legitimisation of science and technology. Many of these meanings are not necessarily new and have been extensively discussed and criticised in the literature, as some of the references cited in the analysis and discussion attest. However, the performative function of representations and their associated meanings cannot be overlooked and therefore need to be made visible in the quest for greater reflexivity and transparency.

Conclusions

This article analysed the ‘culture of participation’ underpinning the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project (2016–2017) and some representations of (nano)science and (nano)technology conveyed by the project’s resulting comics: Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). The aim of the analysis was to support the claim that the ‘culture of participation’ and the meanings presented in the comics serve to underscore the social legitimation of (nano)science and (nano)technology.

On the one hand, the ‘culture of participation’ that underpinned the project was identified by examining the processes involved in the creation of the two volumes. This entailed diagnosing the possible levels of inspiration that might have come from the comics submitted to the ‘2016’ and ‘2017’ Challenges by comparing them with the scripts and illustrations of Dayanne and Murillo (2016) and NanoKOMIK #2 (2017). The results showed that the project coordinators played a major role in the creation of most of the comic scripts. There were no similar stories in the comics submitted by the participants that could confirm a binding collaboration or inspiration. Where collaboration was evident, it was heavily influenced by a one-way communication model. External collaborators from outside the scientific community were shown to be primarily constrained by the narratives set by the coordinators. These findings call into question the ‘collaborative’ nature of the project.

On the other hand, a qualitative hermeneutic content analysis was carried out to identify the meanings associated with (nano)science and (nano)technology in the two volumes. The analysis revealed that while the comics presented a positive vision of (nano)science and (nano)technology, they failed to address the potential risks involved. Moreover, they conveyed certain ‘myth-conceptions’ about (nano)techno-scientific activity and its products that may hinder the recognition, reflection, and problematisation of the socio-political dimensions of (nano)technoscience. Both images of the processes of (nano)scientific activity and their resulting products were included in this analysis.

As to the image of the processes of (nano)scientific activity, it was found that an over-individualistic image of the scientist is conveyed. The scientist is presented as a solitary being who seeks her own technological innovation (under a very instrumentalist notion of scientific knowledge) and who sometimes perceives herself as a genius. Scientists are generally presented with their white coats (evoking authority, respect, and purity) and sometimes other protective clothing (PPE and protective glasses). Although there is some descriptive richness in the mention of the work facilities in/with which the scientific activity takes place (e.g. places and tools), the mention of environments such as business and industry is absent. Despite the emphasis on individualism, many vignettes describe the social relations scientists have with other members of the scientific community, thus providing a panoramic picture of the relationships that scientists establish with each other. These relationships are based on interpersonal competition (whether productive or counter-productive), collaboration or the search for recognition. However, none of these relationships refers to processes of the co-production of knowledge involving actors outside the scientific community.

Regarding the image of the products resulting from the scientific activity, the great variety of artefacts and functionalities illustrated in the volumes of ‘NanoKOMIK’ is notable. The main nanophile vision conveyed is that the ‘revolutionary powers of nanosciences’ could have a wide scope involving different sectors (e.g. materials, energy, sustainability). However, this revolutionary character contrasts with the mundane products in which the expected revolutionary properties of the technologies were mainly apparent (e.g. gloves, suits, masks). In addition, one of the recurring images in the comic stories is that the products (many of which are inspired by nature) are researched and manufactured in laboratories as well as used by scientists themselves. In addition to an individualistic image of the scientist, there is a representation of scientific and technological innovation that is oversimplified and linear, in which the only actor is the scientist. In this sense, actors in the co-production process such as industry, stakeholders, or other members of civil society are absent. Scientists, as individuals, are presented as the key and unique actors during all phases of research and development: they are the researchers, developers, testers, and even users of their own artefactual innovations. Similarly, in respect of the use and implementation of these artefacts, there is both a noticeable lack of problematisation of the risks inherent in nanotechnologies and a clearly positive image of their instrumental use: these instruments are mainly used or help to solve any problems, and no image is presented of their possible negative repercussions. In fact, some of the vignettes and stories could support the hypothesis that a value-free image of science and technology underpins the comics.

Both the ‘culture of participation’ underlying the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project and the representations and meanings associated with (nano)science and (nano)technology contained in the comics may play a functional role in the social legitimisation of (nano)science and (nano)technology. On the one hand, the ‘culture of participation’ that underpins the project is functional in legitimising (nano)science and (nano)technology because it reproduces modes of participation and collaboration that are not particularly meaningful or binding but instead aim to align the public with the knowledge and narratives presented by experts. On the other hand, the meanings circulating in the comics have been shown to be functional in the social legitimation of (nano)science and (nano)technology because they primarily reproduce the promises of the instrumental and practical virtues of (nano)science and (nano)technology. The two comics also convey an individualistic and linear vision of research and innovation and an instrumentalist and neutral (or ‘value-free’) view of technology.

While the identification of these representations and meanings is important, it should not obscure some potentially interesting aspects present in the comics produced by the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project. These comics offer rich representations of the social dimensions of scientific activity, particularly in terms of the relationships between scientists, interpersonal competition and collaboration, and the quest for recognition from the scientific community (see the ‘The Individual or Group Nature of the Scientific Activity’ section). Furthermore, the limitations of the collaborative model underpinning the ‘NanoKOMIK’ project need to be understood in the light of the age of the target participants and the responsibilities and commitments involved in the project’s execution.

The ultimate aim of the present study and critique has been to illuminate and challenge the assumptions that the comics represent as well as to question their instrumental nature in reinforcing promises and subtly shielding science and technology from problematisation. The question is not only whether these images present a more realistic view of science and technology or whether readers can visualise a more nuanced and complex vision of scientific and technological production and its interaction with society. More importantly, it is about critically examining how frames and meanings that inhibit the imagination of richer modes of science-society interaction are circulated and reproduced by projects advertised as ‘collaborative’.