Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a rapidly expanding field of research on social and ethical interactions with nano-scaled sciences and technologies. An important question is: What does social and ethical research actually mean when it is focussed on technological applications that are largely hypothetical, and a field of science spread out across multiple disciplines and lacking unification? This paper maps early literature in the field of research as a way of answering this question. Our aim is to describe how this field is developing in response to its difficult task, and particularly, to comment on the topics of focus and where there is potential for future development. We present four topical categories, labelled Governance, Perception, Science and Philosophy, and use these as a tool to both map the field and to analyse its development. We find a majority of literature currently focused on issues of governance and perception, and offer suggestions for why this might be so. We then discuss cross-category themes of definition, novelty and interdisciplinarity, highlighting diverse positions and a problematic lack of direct debate. Our conclusion is that the field would benefit from more interaction, cross-referencing and creative research across traditional fields of inquiry.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SEIN was a term first introduced by Baird and Vogt [7] and the importance of emphasising interactions over implications has been expounded in Toumey and Baird [101].

  2. Of course one could alternatively ask why there were so few documents (13%) in 2005. In our opinion this is harder to find reasons for, although it might be argued that it is simply a consequence of saturation in 2004.

  3. It is possible to argue, as Grunwald [38] does, that a ‘new ethics’ is needed in order to deal with the ethical aspects of nanotechnology, even though neither the technology nor the ethical questions are new. For example, when it is felt that the ‘ethics’ we have, did not deal well enough with past technological developments.

  4. An interesting point to note here is the question of whether individual researchers can be interdisciplinary. We believe that while they certainly can be (by drawing on and integrating work from across a range of different disciplines), the immense challenges of this task and the traditional organisation of higher educational institutions according to disciplinary specialist streams makes this unlikely to be widespread and possibly difficult to detect. For the ease of our analysis here, we excluded the possibility of individual authors working in interdisciplinary ways, as did Schummer [92].

  5. Schummer [93] has suggested that the lack of interdisciplinarity stems from the definition of nano S&T being too vague, and the fact that diverging visions of the future of the technology are being generated by different paradigms. From general literature on integrative research, we can also say that there are a number of challenges inhibiting the practice of interdisciplinarity; factors such as the difficulty of communicating across disciplines, the extended time periods required, and the power politics emerging during collaborative processes [16, 41, 78].

References

  1. Allhoff F, Lin P (2006) What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? Int J Appl Philos 20:179–190

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altmann J (2004) Military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives and concerns. Secur Dialog 35:61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ANSI (2005) American National Standards Institute’s Nanotechnology Standards Panel (ANSI-NSP) brochure. ANSI, New York, NY.http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/standards_boards_panels/nsp/overview.aspx?menuid=3. Cited 21 Jun 2007

  4. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balbus JM, Denison R, Florini K, Walsh SA (2006) Getting nanotechnology right the first time. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 130–138

    Google Scholar 

  6. Balbus JM, Florini K, Denison RA, Walsh SA (2007) Protecting workers and the environment: an environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baird D, Vogt T (2006) Societal and ethical interactions with nanotechnology [SEIN]: an introduction. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:391–396

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baird D, Shew A (2004) Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 145–156

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) (2004) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam

  10. Ball P (2003) 2003: nanotechnology in the firing line. IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK.http://nanotechweb.org/articles/society/2/12/1/1. Cited 16 Apr 2007

  11. Berne RW (2004) Towards the conscientious development of ethical nanotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics 10:627–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berne RW (2006) Nanotalk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bernett J, Carr A, Clift R (2006) Going public: Risk, trust and public understanding of nanotechnologies. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 196–211

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berube DM (2004) The rhetoric of nanotechnology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 173–192

    Google Scholar 

  15. Berube DM (2005) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blättel-Mink B, Kastenholz H (2005) Transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: diffusion conditions of an institutional innovation. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bueno O (2006) The Drexler-Smalley debate. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 29–48

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clift R (2006) Risk management and regulation in an emerging technology. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 140–153

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Colvin VL (2003) Public policy and the environmental implications of nanotechnology. Abstr Pap–Am Chem Soc 225:U952

    Google Scholar 

  22. de Vries MJ (2006) Analyzing the complexity of nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 165–179

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dupuy JP, Grinbaum A (2006) Living with uncertainty: towards the ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 287–314

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ebbesen M, Andersen S, Besenbacher F (2006) Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Economic & Social Research Council (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Report. Economic & Social Research Council, UK.http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Nanotechnology_tcm6-5506.pdf. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  26. Einsiedel EF, Goldenberg L (2006) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from biotechnology front. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 213–221

    Google Scholar 

  27. ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) (2003). The big down. Report. ETC Group, Canada.http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  28. ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) (2003). No small matter II: the case for a global moratorium. Size matters! Newsletter. www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/165/01/occ.paper_nanosafety.pdf. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  29. European Commission (2004) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, communication from the commission (Brussels, European Communities. Report). European Commission, Brussels. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en_new.pdf

  30. Fielder FA, Reynolds GH (1994) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. South Calif Interdiscip Law J 3:593–629

    Google Scholar 

  31. FoE (Friends of the Earth) (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. Report. http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/nanocosmetics.pdf. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  32. Frewer L, Scholderer J, Bredahl L (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal 23:1117–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Publ Underst Sci 14:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Glimell H (2003) Challenging limits: excerpts from an emerging ethnography of nano physicists. In: Fogelberg H, Glimell H (eds) Bringing visibility to the invisible: towards a social understanding of nanotechnology, STS research reports no. 6. Goteborg Universitet, Sweden, pp 115–137

    Google Scholar 

  35. Glimell H (2004) Grand visions and Lilliput politics: staging the exploration of the ‘Endless Frontier’. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 231–246

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gordijn B (2005) Nanoethics: from utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view. Sci Eng Ethics 11:521–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gorman ME, Groves JF, Shrager J, Baird D, Schummer J (2004) Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as training zone: Results from a pilot project. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 63–73

  38. Grunwald A (2005) Nanotechnology – a new field of ethical inquiry? Sci Eng Ethics 11:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hayles NK (2004) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Bristol, UK

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hansson SO (2004) Great uncertainty about small things. Techne: Res Philos Technol 8:10–35

    Google Scholar 

  41. Haugaard Jakobsen C, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ (2004) Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross country comparison. For Policy Econ 6:15–31

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hennig J (2006) Changes in the design of scanning Tunneling Microscoic images from 1980 to 1990. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 143–163

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hessenbruch A (2006) Beyond truth: pleasure of nanofutures. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 357–382

    Google Scholar 

  44. Howard CV, Ikah DSK (2006) Nanotechnology and nanoparticle toxicity: a case for precaution. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 154–166

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hunt G (2006) Nanotechnologies and society in Europe. In: Hunt G, Metha M (eds) Nanotechnology-risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 92–104

  46. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2005) ISO launches work on nanotechnology standards. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2005/Ref980.html. Cited 21 Jun 2007

  47. Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  48. Johnson DG (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: an essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies, and emerging technologies. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Khushf G (2004) A hierarchical architecture for nano-scale science and technology: taking stock of the claims about science made by advocates of NBIC convergence. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–33

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kulinowski K (2004) Nanotechnology: from wow to yuck? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kuzma J (2006) Moving forward responsibly: oversight for the nanotechnology–biology. J Nanopart Res 9:165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Laszlo P (2004) Is there life after Partington? Hyle: Int J Philos Chem 10:169–178

    Google Scholar 

  54. Laurent J, Petit JC (2006) Nanoscience and their convergence with other technologies: new golden age or apocalypse? In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 249–286

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lawrence RJ, Despres C (2004) Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:397–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies – examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lewenstein BV (2006) What counts as a ‘Social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology? In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 201–216

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lin-Easton PC (2001) It’s time for environmentalists to think small – real small: a call for the involvement of environmental lawyers in developing precautionary policies molecular nanotechnology. Georgetown Law Rev 14:106–134

    Google Scholar 

  59. López J (2006) Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 327–356

    Google Scholar 

  60. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Publ Underst Sci 15:221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mehta M (2006) From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 121–129

    Google Scholar 

  63. Milburn C (2004) Nanotechnology in the age of post-human engineering: science fiction as science’. In: Hayles NK (ed) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Bristol, UK, pp 109–130

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mills K (2006) Nanotechnologies and society in the USA. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology – risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 74–90

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mills K, Fleddermann C (2005) Getting the best from nanotechnology: approaching social and ethical implications openly and proactively. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mody CCM (2006) Small, but determined: technological determinism in nanoscale. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 95–130

    Google Scholar 

  67. Moor JH, Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics: assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 301–310

    Google Scholar 

  68. Morgan K (2005) Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal 25:1621–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Munshi D, Kurian P, Bartlett RV, Lakhtakia A (2007) A map of the nanoworld: Sizing up the science, politics, and business of the infinitesimal. Futures 39:432–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2000) What is nanotechnology? National Nanotechnology Initiative, USA. http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html. Cited 28 Jun 2007

  71. National Science Foundation (2006) Nanotechnology definition. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/omb_nifty50.jsp. Cited 28 Jun 2007

  72. Nanoforum (2004) Benefits, risks, ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology. In: 4th nanoforum report. Nanoforum, Europe. http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/ELSIPart%201.pdf?28112006121105. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  73. Nicolau D (2004) Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology policies: an Australian perspective. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nordmann A (2004) Molecular disjunctions: staking claims at the nanoscale. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 51–62

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nordmann A (2004) Converging technologies: shaping the future of european societies. Report of the High Level Expert Group “Foresighting the New Technology Wave”. European Commission Research, Brussels

  76. Nordmann A (2006) Noumenal technology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 49–72

    Google Scholar 

  77. Pitt JC (2006) When is an image not an image? In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 131–141

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pohl C (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures 37:1159–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Pullin J (2003) Good and evil. Prof Eng 16:29

    Google Scholar 

  80. Preston CJ (2006) The promise and threat of nanotechnology: can environmental ethics guide us? In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 217–248

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ravetz J (1971) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  82. Reinert K, Andrews L, Keenan R (2006) Nanotechnology nexus – intersection of research, science, technology, and regulation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:811–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Geneva. www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/irgc06_wp.pdf. Cited 17 Apr 2007

  84. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Roberts JA (2004) Deciding the future of nanotechnologies: legal perspectives on issues of democracy and technology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 247–255

    Google Scholar 

  86. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht/National Science Foundation, USA

    Google Scholar 

  87. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  88. Schiemann G (2004) Dissolution of the nature-technology dichotomy? Perspectives on nanotechnology from an everyday understanding of nature. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 209–213

    Google Scholar 

  89. Schiemann G (2006) Nanotechnology and nature: on two criteria for understanding their relationship. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 73–94

    Google Scholar 

  90. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Schmidt JC (2004) Unbounded technologies: working through technological reductionism of nanotechnology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 35–50

    Google Scholar 

  92. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59:425–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Schummer J (2004) Interdisciplinary issues in nanoscale research. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 9–20

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schummer J (2006) Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: meanings, interest groups, and social dynamics. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 413–449

    Google Scholar 

  95. Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sweeney AE (2006) Social and ethical dimensions of nanoscale science and engineering research. Sci Eng Ethics 12:435–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Toumey C (2005) Apostolic succession. Eng Sci 68:16–23

    Google Scholar 

  98. Toumey C (2006) Narratives for nanotech: anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges – implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 383–411

    Google Scholar 

  99. Toumey C, Baird D (2006) Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond. Nat Biotechnol 24:721–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. US Senate (2003) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Passed on 18 November. US Senate, USA. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4390&sequence=0. Cited 16 Apr 2007

  101. Weckert J (2001) The control of scientific research: the case of nanotechnology. Aust J Prof Appl Ethics 3:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  102. Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38:1046–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wilsdon J (2004) The politics of small things: nanotechnology, risk, and uncertainty. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 23:16–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  105. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10:445–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the participants at our two Bergen workshops for invaluable motivation, useful comment and critique. We are particularly grateful to Prof. Roger Strand for providing insights and inspiration throughout the research project. Part of this research has been funded by the Norwegian Research Council’s program NANOMAT, and we are especially grateful for this support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7800, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Kamilla Kjølberg & Fern Wickson

Authors
  1. Kamilla Kjølberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fern Wickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamilla Kjølberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kjølberg, K., Wickson, F. Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature. Nanoethics 1, 89–104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0011-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0011-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation