Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Governing Future Technologies pp 131–155Cite as

Emerging De Facto Agendas Surrounding Nanotechnology: Two Cases Full of Contingencies, Lock-outs, and Lock-ins

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 27))

Abstract

In a number of ways, the development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies is more reflexive than was the case for earlier new and emerging sciences and technologies. One indication is the common reference to the so-called impasse around (green) biotechnology, and how to avoid a similar impasse (For an example, see Colvin 2003; for an analysis in terms of folk theories, Rip 2006c). Related to this is the willingness to invite public engagement, if only as a precautionary measure. There is also reference to the importance of “responsible” development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies, e.g. in European Commission documents and in recent initiatives for voluntary codes. Clearly, there is now space for reflection and deliberation.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “… mature technological systems – cars, roads, municipal water supplies, sewers, telephones, railroads, weather forecasting, buildings, even computers in the majority of their uses – reside in a naturalized background, as ordinary and unremarkable to us as trees, daylight, and dirt. Our civilizations fundamentally depend on them, yet we notice them mainly when they fail, which they rarely do. They are the connective tissues and the circulatory systems of modernity. In short, these systems have become infrastructures.” (Edwards 2003: 185).

  2. 2.

    Foucault (1977), Appadurai (1990) on “technoscapes,” Barry (2001) on “technological zones of circulation.” Barry (2001: 200) comments that “Foucault’s analysis of dispositifs or apparatuses is too static to reveal the dynamic instability of socio-technical arrangements.”

  3. 3.

    Other visualizations are possible, such as the fitness landscape (Lansing and Kremer 1993, Jelsma 2003), the epigenetic landscape with its “chreodes” (Waddington 1975), and a potential field, as in electromagnetic theory.

  4. 4.

    “Arenas and fora, and the various issues discussed and addressed there, thus involve … political activity but not necessarily legislative bodies and counts of law.” (Strauss 1978: 124)

  5. 5.

    The notion of entanglement is important, in order to avoid too-easy recourse to traditional interest and power explanations.

  6. 6.

    Implementation studies have gone some way in this direction when emphasizing the importance of “bottom-up” processes (Hanf and Toonen 1985); cf. also Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) on mutual adaptation between policy making and what happens “on the ground,” and who turned it into advice for modest policy making, or better, policy making that takes implementability into account. In other words, goals are modified by considering possible implementation.

  7. 7.

    Richard Jones made this remark in the Stanford-Paris conference on Social and Ethical Implications of Nano-

    Bio-Info Convergence, Avignon, 18-19 December 2006. He agreed to our quoting him this way.

  8. 8.

    Interestingly, the Swiss research institute Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) (see Merz in this volume), which has moved from materials science and technology into nanotechnology, in a 2007 booklet Reise in die Welt des Nanometers that explained nanotechnology to the general public, is prepared to say: “Formuliert wurden diese Visionen [of molecular manufacturing and molecular self-organization] erstmals 1981 von Eric Drexler. Er hat, 22 Jahre nach dem denkwürdigen Vortrag Richard Feynmans, dessen nanowissenschaftliche Vision aufgenommen und zu einer Vision Nanotechnologie weiterentwickelt. Heute gelten Eric Drexler, gemeinsam mit Heinrich Roher und Gerd Binnig, die im selben Jahr das Rastertunnelmikroskop erfanden, als die Väter der Nanotechnologie.“ Nanoscientists at EMPA told us this text was the responsibility of EMPA’s communications department, not theirs.

  9. 9.

    Note the difficulty of terminology: terms like “molecular machines” or “assembly” and “self-assembly” have been used (and thus claimed) by different parties, for different purposes, and thus with different meanings. “Molecular machines” is now a respectable research area with concrete findings, and the researchers eschew any reference to the Drexlerian use of molecular machines. “Self-assembly” is sometimes used to refer to Drexlerian replicators assembling copies of themselves, but chemists from Whitesides (1995) on have claimed the term for what a “society of molecules” can be induced to do, rather than the precise control of atoms/molecules envisaged by Drexler (cf. also Bensaude-Vincent 2006).

  10. 10.

    We are indebted to Colin Milburn for offering insights (and references) into the nature of the early debate.

  11. 11.

    The Globe and Mail of 26 November 2002, reporting on the debut of the novel, also quoted nanoscientist Wolfgang Heckl: “We have to take this seriously. If enough senators in the U.S. get phone calls from their constituents saying, “I just read Prey and I’m scared,” it could have a real impact on our funding. Nanoscience is just in its infancy. We can’t afford to be cut off.” Interestingly, the Drexlerians were also concerned about loss of credibility, cf. how Chris Phoenix (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) took the same (and misguided) approach of criticizing the science in Prey in his review in Nanotechnology Now (Phoenix 2003).

  12. 12.

    Nanotech promoters appear to have overestimated the extent to which the notion of grey goo would capture the public’s imagination and evoke resistance against nanotechnology (Thurs and Hilgartner 2005). In fact, a 2004 Internet search by ETC Group indicated that most entries referring to the “threat of Grey Goo as presented by Drexler and Crichton” were from nanotech promoters and scientists concerned over the alleged “public misunderstanding of nanotechnology” that was assumed to be the result of earlier publicity on the notion of Grey Goo (ETC 2004: 7).

  13. 13.

    Here, we move away from Mario Kaiser’s diagnosis that “there is hardly any doubt that concerns such as the possible future existence of grey goo have initiated a somewhat vehement reflection on the foundations that nanoscience and technology rest upon.” (Kaiser 2006: 5). As we see it, Smalley (and also George Whitesides) took a chemist’s view of the matter and criticized Drexler’s engineering vision on that basis. The Grey Goo scenario is referred to only in passing. Bennett and Sarewitz (2006: 315) also emphasize such a link: the need to avoid Bill Joy’s conclusion that certain lines of investigation should be relinquished (e.g. self-replication of nanobots, which might spread to current work in nanotechnology).

  14. 14.

    There were other bones of contention, like human enhancement (artificial intelligence which exceeds human capacity), but these are not linked to Drexler’s visions (Fisher and Mahajan 2006: 11).

  15. 15.

    A study “to develop, insofar as possible, a consensus on whether molecular manufacturing is technically feasible.” And if feasible, the study would find “the estimated time frame in which molecular manufacturing may be possible on a commercial scale; and recommendations for a research agenda necessary to achieve this result” (quoted from Regis 2004).

  16. 16.

    Peterson (2004: 12), vice president of the Foresight Institute, refers to successful lobbying of opponents to the molecular manufacturing vision. See also Tim Harper’s comments (TNT Weekly 2003).

  17. 17.

    Milburn (ibid.: 122) then argues that “this rhetoric thoroughly deconstructs itself in a futile struggle for boundary articulation that has already been lost.” For all practical purposes, however, from 2004 onward, the boundary was maintained without much effort through general acceptance of the claim that the Drexlerian vision was just speculation.

  18. 18.

    Drexler himself articulated this dynamic. Brown (2001) reported that Drexler said that many scientists eagerly slapped the term “nanotechnology” on their research when it was viewed as “sexy,” but became “a little upset to find that they had a label on their work that was associated with outrageous, science-fictiony sounding claims about the future and scary scenarios and other things. … What nanoscale technologist would want the burden of such fears?” (Drexler 2004).

  19. 19.

    Or sometimes EHS, cf. The Economist, A little risky business. November 22nd, 2007.

  20. 20.

    Interview (by Marloes van Amerom, 7 July 2006) with Vicky Colvin, Director CBEN.

  21. 21.

    There are further indications, for example the lack of reference to nanoparticle risks in the Delphi study into benefits and potential drawbacks of using nanotechnology for health, commissioned by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, September 2002.

  22. 22.

    When a product featured as “nano” turns out to have health effects (as happened in April 2006 with the German bathroom cleaner Magic Nano), the first concern is about damage to the image of nano (and everybody was relieved that – this time – it was the aerosol in the can, not nanomaterials that were responsible for users’ health problems; there may not even have been a nanomaterial in the product).

  23. 23.

    The IRGC is a private not-for-profit foundation, based in Geneva, “to support governments, industry, NGOs and other organizations in their efforts to understand and deal with major and global risks facing society and to foster public confidence in risk governance.” (quoted from Renn and Roco 2006b: 5) A conference report is available from Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue (2007).

  24. 24.

    This framework is criticized by other NGOs; see the Open Letter by the Civil Society – Labor Coalition of 12 April 2007.

  25. 25.

    Degussa’s website on nanotechnology has an item to this extent on responsibility (http://www.degussa-nano.com/nano (accessed on January 27, 2008)), and BASF’s Code of Conduct has a similar thrust.

  26. 26.

    See: http://www.responsiblenanocode.org (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  27. 27.

    Even if the possibility of molecular manufacturing is kept alive in scenario-building exercises by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN 2007), and in arguments about prudent anticipation (Lin and Althoff 2007).

References

  • Abbott, A. (1988), The System of Professions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert de la Bruhèze (1992), Political Construction of Technology. Nuclear Waste Disposal in The United States 1945–1972, PhD Thesis: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allis, D. G. (2007), Interview with Sander Olson, http://www.somewhereville.com/?p=93 (accessed on January 8, 2008).

  • Anderson, A., S. Allan, A. Petersen and C. Wilkinson (2005), ‘The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press’, Science Communication 27(2): 200–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (1990), ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’, Theory, Culture and Society, 7(2–3): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnall, A. H. (2003), Future Technologies. Today’s Choices. Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies, London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. (2001), Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society, London and New York: The Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, R. (2003), ‘Nanotechnology. Drexler and Smalley Make the Case For and Against Molecular Assemblers’, Chemical Engineering News 81(48): 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, I. and D. Sarewitz (2006), ‘Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology of Nanotechnology in the United States’, Science as Culture 15(4): 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2006), ‘Two Cultures of Nanotechnology?’ in J. Schummer and D. Baird (eds.), Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing: 7–28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D. and J. D. Shipman (2004), ‘Denialism: Drexler vs. Roco’, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 23(4): 22–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (2001), ‘Drexler Warns Terror Symposium: Nanotechnology Has Extreme Downsides’, SmallTimes (19 December), http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=2754.

  • Browne, W. R. and B. L. Feringa (2006), ‘Making Molecular Machines Work’, Nature Nanotechnology 1: 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumfiel, G. (2003), ‘A Little Knowledge…’ Nature 424: 246–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, V. L. (2003), Testimony of Dr. Vicki L. Colvin Director Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) and Associate Professor of Chemistry Rice University, Houston, Texas before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science in regard to ‘Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003’, 9 April, http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/full03/apr09/colvin.htm (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • CRN (2007), The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Scenario Project, http://crnano.org/CTF-ScenarioIntro.htm (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Drexler, K.E. (1986), Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, K. E. (2004), ‘Nanotechnology: From Feynman to Funding’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24(1): 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. (2003), ‘Infrastructure and Modernity: Force, Time, and Social Organization in the History of Sociotechnical Systems’ in T. J. Misa, P. Brey and A. Feenberg (eds.), Modernity and Technology, Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press: 185–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC (2003a), The Big Down: Atomtech – Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=171 (accessed on October 10, 2008).

  • ETC (2003b), ‘Size Matters! The Case for a Global Moratorium’, Occasional paper Series 7(1), http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=165 (accessed on October 10, 2008).

  • ETC (2003c), ‘Nanotechnology Un-gooed! Is the Grey/Green Goo Brouhaha the Industry’s Second Blunder?’, Group Communiqué 80. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/154/01/ecom_prince007final.pdf (accessed on October 10, 2008).

  • ETC (2004), ‘Nanotechnology News in Living Color: An Update on White Papers, Red Flags, Green Goo, Grey Goo (and Red Herrings)’, ETC Group Communiqué 85. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=95 (accessed on October 10, 2008).

  • Feder, B. (2003), ‘Nanotechnology Creates a Royal Stir in Britain,’ International Herald Tribune (May 20).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. and R. L. Mahajan (2006), ‘Contradictory Intent? US Federal Legislation on Integrating Societal Concerns into Nanotechnology Research and Development’, Science and Public Policy, 33(1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, K. A. D., M. R. Taylor and J. F. Banfield (2006), ‘Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology: National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, 2000–2004’, Environmental Science & Technology 40: 1401–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanf, K. and T. A. J. Toonen (eds.) (1985), Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, T. (2004), ‘Nanorisk’, TNTlog (May 6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, T. (2006), Keynote, BizTech 2006 Meeting, Eindhoven (September 26).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. H. and B. V. Lewenstein (2005), ‘Nugget’ in Project Description Nanotechnology as a “Revolutionary Technology”: Rhetoric, Forward-looking Statements, and Public Understanding of Science, http://www.cns.cornell.edu/TechnologyAndSociety.html

  • HRH The Prince of Wales (2004), ‘Menace in the Minutiae: New Nanotechnology has Potential Dangers as Well as Benefits’, The Independent on Sunday, 11 July: 3, 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Physics (2004), Nanotechnology – Fear or Fiction? Explaining the Science – Identifying the Issues, http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Events/Lectures/file_5756.doc (accessed on August 1, 2008).

  • Jelsma, J. (2003), ‘Innovating for Sustainability: Involving Users, Politics and Technology’, European Journal of Social Science Research 16(2): 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, M. (2006), ‘Drawing the Boundaries of Nanoscience – Rationalizing the Concerns?’, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34(4): 667–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M. and A. Rip (2009), The Emerging Governance Landscape of Nanotechnology, in S. Gammel, A. Lösch, and A. Nordmann (eds.), Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit Nanotechnologie, Berlin: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansing, J. S. and J. N. Kremer (1993), ‘Emergent Properties of Balinese Water Temple Networks: Coadaptation on a Rugged Fitness Landscape’, American Anthropologist 95(1): 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P. and Althoff, S. (2007), Nanoscience and Nanoethics: Defining the Disciplines, in F. Allhof, P. Lin, J. Moor, J. Weckert (eds.), Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons: 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Los Angeles Times (2002), ‘The Future Dances on a Pin’s Head; Nanotechnology: Will it be a boon – or kill us all?‘, Los Angeles Times (November 26).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovy, H. (2003a), NanoBusiness Leader Makes the Call (December 9), http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003/12/nanobusiness-leader-makes-call.html (accessed on March 4, 2009).

  • Lovy, H. (2003b), Drexler on ‘Drexlerians’ (December 15), http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003/12/drexler-on-drexlerians.html (accessed on March 4, 2009).

  • Lux Research (2005), ‘A Prudent Approach to NanotechnologyEnvironmental, Health, and Safety Risks’, Industrial Biotechnology 1(3): 146–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, A. D., R. J. Aitken, T. Butz, V. Colvin, K. Donaldson, G. Oberdörster, M. A. Philbert, J. Ryan, A. Seaton, V. Stone, S. S. Tinkle, L. Tran, N. J. Walker and D. B. Warheit (2006), ‘Safe Handling of Nanotechnology’, Nature 44: 267–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, J. (2004), Swiss Re Warns Insurers on Nanotechnology After Study (Update 2) (May10), http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aDKqgCoPlBPI&refer=europe (accessed on March 4, 2009).

  • Milburn, C. (2004), ‘Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science’, in Hayles, N.K. (ed.), (2004), Nanoculture. Implications of the New Technoscience, Bristol (UK): Intellect Books: 109–129 and 217–223. Reprinted from Configurations 10(2): 261–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, C. (2008), Nanovision: Engineering the Future, Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munich Re Group (2002), Nanotechnology- What is in store for us?. http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-03534_en.pdf?rdm=40215 (accessed on January 15, 2008).

  • National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) (1999), Nanotechnology – Shaping the World Atom by Atom, Washington, D.C.: NSTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordan, M. M. and M. W. Holman (2005), ‘A Prudent Approach to Nanotechnology Environmental, Health and Safety risks’, Industrial Biotechnology 1(3): 146–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., P. Scott and M. Gibbons (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., E. Oberdörster and J. Oberdörster (2005), ‘Nanotoxicology: an Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine particles’, Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7): 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. (2003a), ‘Charles: “Grey Goo” Threat to the World’, The Mail on Sunday (April 27): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. (2003b), ‘Nightmare of the Grey Goo’, The Mail on Sunday (April 27): 8.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix, C. (2003), ‘Don’t let Crichton’s Prey Scare you – the Science isn’t Real’, Nanotechnology Now (January), http://www.nanotech-now.com/Chris-Phoenix/prey-critique.htm (accessed on January 15, 2008).

  • Phoenix, C. and E. Drexler (2004), ‘Safe Exponential Manufacturing’, Nanotechnology 15: 869–872, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/001/ (accessed on January 15, 2008).

  • PhysicsOrg.com (2005), More Funds (November), http://www.physorg.com/news4963.html

  • Pressman, J. L. and A. Wildavsky (1984), Implementation. How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland, third edition, Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regis, E. (2004), ‘The Incredible Shrinking Man’, Wired, October. http://www.nanotechnologist.com/misc/index.html (accessed on January 15, 2008).

  • Renn, O. and M. C. Roco (2006a), ‘Nanotechnology and the Need for Risk Governance’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8(2): 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. and M. C. Roco (2006b), Nantechnology Risk Governance, White Paper No. 2, Geneva: IRGC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rincon, P. (2004), ‘Nanotechnology Guru Turns Back on “Goo”’, BBC News (June 9), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3788673.stm (accessed on January 15, 2008).

  • Rip, A. (1986), ‘Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment’, Knowledge 8(2): 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006a), ‘The Tension Between Fiction and Precaution in Nanotechnology’ in E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg (eds.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects, Cheltenham/Northhampton (Mass.): Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006b), ‘A Coevolutionary Approach to Reflexive Governance – and Its Ironies’ in J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp (eds.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham/Northhampton (Mass.): Edward Elgar: 82–100.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., D. Robinson, and H. te Kulve (2007), ‘Multi-level Emergence and Stabilisation of Paths of Nanotechnology in Different Industries/Sectors’, Workshop on Paths of Developing Complex Technologies, Berlin, September 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D., M. Ruivenkamp, and A. Rip (2007), ‘Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S&T via statement-linkages: Vision Assessment of Molecular Machines’, Scientometrics 70(3): 831–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, H. and H. te Kulve (2008), ‘Constructive Technology Assessment and Sociotechnical Scenarios.’ In Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, Jameson M. Wetmore (eds.), The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, Berlin etc: Springer: 49–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C. (2003), ‘Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5(3–4): 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. and W. Bainbridge (2001), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. and R. Tomellini (eds.) (2003), ‘Nanotechnology – Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications’, EC–NSF Workshop (January 2003), Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004), Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/contents.pdf (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Sahal, D. (1985), ‘Technological Guideposts and Innovation Avenues’, Research Policy 14: 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sample, I. (2004), ‘Civilisation Safe as Nanobot Threat Fades’, Guardian (June 9). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1234436,00.html (accessed on January 27, 2008).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherriff, L. (2004), ‘World safe from nanobot “grey goo”: U-turn by prophet of doom Eric Drexler’, The Register (June 9), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/09/grey_goo_goeth/ (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Shibuya, E. (1996), ‘Roaring Mice Against the Tide: The South Pacific Islands and Agenda-Building on Global Warming’, Pacific Affairs 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small Times (2002), Activists: No More Nanomaterials Until We Know Whether it Pollutes (8 August), http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/stm_print_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268070 (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Small Times (2003a), Watchdogs Say Stop Nanotech, Start Worldwide Dialogue (31 January), http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/stm_print_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268506 (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Small Times (2003b), Greenpeace Wades into Nanodebate with Report that Calls for Caution (24 July), http://www.smalltimes.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268886&p=109 (accessed on March 4, 2009).

  • Smalley, R. (2001), ‘Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots’, Scientific American 285: 76–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smalley, R. (2003), ‘Smalley Concludes’, in Baum (2003): 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2005), ‘Opening Up or Closing Down: Analysis, Participation and Power in Social Appraisal of Technology’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne (eds.), Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, London: Zed Books: 218–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1978). ’A Social World Perspective’, Studies in Symbolic Interaction 1: 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra T. and A. Rip (2007), ‘Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology’, NanoEthics 1(1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Re (2004), Nanotechnology: Small Matter, Many Unknowns, Zürich: Swiss Reinsurance Company (Swiss Re).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue (2007), ‘The Risk Governance of Nanotechnology: Recommendations for Managing a Global Issue’, July 6–7, 2006, Conference Report, Zürich: Swiss Reinsurance Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Scotsman (2004), Grey Goo Destruction Theorist Changes Tack (June 8), http://news.scotsman.com/weirdoddandquirkystories/Grey-goo-destruction-theorist-changes.2536010.jp (accessed on March 4, 2009).

  • Thurs, D., and S. Hilgartner (2005), ‘The Spread of Grey Goo: Fearful Publics and Fear of the Public in the Nanotechnology Arena’, http://www.cns.cornell.edu/documents/TheSpreadofGreyGooMarch05.pdf

  • TNT Weekly (2003), The Plot Thickens and the Nanotechnology Bill Gets Sillier, http://www.cientifica.info/html/TNT/tnt_weekly/archive_2003/Issue_13.htm (accessed on January 28, 2008).

  • Trubek, D. M., P. Cottrell, and M. Nance (2006), ‘Soft Law, Hard Law and EU Integration’ in G. De Burca and J. Scott (eds.), Law and New Governance in the UK and the US, Oxford: Hart Publising: 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden R. (2007), ‘Building Tomorrow’s Nanofactory’, Chemistry World (October 19). http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/October/19100701.asp (accessed on January 27, 2008).

  • Waddington, C. H. (1975), The Evolution of an Evolutionist, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitesides, G. M. (1995), ‘Self-Assembling Materials’, Scientific American (September): 146–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitesides, G. M. (1998), ‘Nanotechnology: Art of the Possible’, Technology. MIT Magazine of Innovation (November/December): 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitesides, G. M. (2001), ‘The Once and Future Nanomachine’, Scientific American 285(3): 78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., A. Geldart, and R. Jones (2007), Nanotechnology: from the Science to the Social, Swindon (UK): Economic and Social Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies, University of Twente, 7500 AE, Enschede, NL, Netherlands

    Professor Dr. Arie Rip & Marloes Van Amerom

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Arie Rip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marloes Van Amerom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Mario Kaiser

  2. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Monika Kurath

  3. Programm für Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Basel, Missionsstr. 21, Basel, 4003, Switzerland

    Sabine Maasen

  4. Inst. Medizin- und, Universität Lübeck, Königstr. 42, Lübeck, 23552, Germany

    Christoph Rehmann-Sutter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rip, A., Van Amerom, M. (2009). Emerging De Facto Agendas Surrounding Nanotechnology: Two Cases Full of Contingencies, Lock-outs, and Lock-ins. In: Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds) Governing Future Technologies. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2834-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation