Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Involvement and Narrative Fallacies of Nanotechnologies

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

Abstract

This paper analyzes a European research project called ‘Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies’ with the abbreviation DEEPEN. The DEEPEN’s findings and conclusions on the narratives, public understandings and the lay ethics of nanotechnologies are examined in a critical manner. Through a criticism of the theoretical framings of what constitutes a narrative and the application of a different theoretical framing of narratives, the paper argues that the findings and conclusion of the DEEPEN should be approached with caution as there are several unjustified claims concerning the contextualization of the findings. Such claims pertain to the theoretical framing of narratives, virtue ethics, modernity, lay attitudes, and earlier research.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hansen J (2010) Biotechnology and Public Engagement in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., Basingstoke

  2. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? J Sci Commun 27(2):268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nydal R, Strand R (2008) God nanoetikk – god nanoteknologiutvikling. Etikk i Praksis 2:33–51

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kaiser, M (2010) Futures Assessed: How Technology Assessment, Ethics and Think Tanks Make Sense of an Unknown Future. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing Future Technologies. Springer, Netherlands, pp 179–197

  5. Davies SR, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay Ethics of Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2):141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dupuy J-P (2010) The Narratology of Lay Ethics. NanoEthics 4(2):153–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission. (2006). Work Programme: 2006 Science & Society Draft 15th update July 2006. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6/docs/wp/sp2/t_wp_200215_en.pdf

  8. Rieder G (2013) Making futures public: on the modalities and intricacies of qualitative social science nano research (Masters). Universität Wien

  9. Nordmann A, Macnaghten P (2010) Engaging Narratives and the Limits of Lay Ethics: Introduction. NanoEthics 4(2):133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heller A (2006) European master narratives about freedom. Handbook of Contemporary European Social Theory 257–265

  11. Macnaghten P, Guivant JS (2010) Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Underst Sci 20(2):207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davies, S. R., Macnaghten, P., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology).

  13. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. J Sci Commun 23(4):359–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Foucault M (2001) Madness and civilization: a history of insanity in the Age of Reason. (R. Howard, Trans.). Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brockmeier J, Harré R (2001) Narrative: Problems and promises of an alternative paradigm. In: Brockmeier J, Carbaugh D (eds) Narrative and identity : Studies in autobiography, self and culture. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Netherlands, pp 39–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Todorov T (1966) Les catégories du récit littéraire. Communications 8(1):125–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41(3):223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stephens LF (2005) News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature. NanoEthics 1(2):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. jaeashzotm. (2011, October 9). InsaneJournal. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.webcitation.org/6JnCvPWAp

  21. Miniwatts Marketing Group. (2012). Internet and Facebook Usage in Europe. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.webcitation.org/6JogsnYs7

  22. Bogad LM (2006) Tactical carnival. In: Cohen-Cruz J, Schutzman M (eds) A Boal companion : dialogues on theatre and cultural politics. Routledge, New York, pp 46–58

    Google Scholar 

  23. Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research. Office for Offical Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Taking European knowledge society seriously

    Google Scholar 

  24. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change 23(5):938–947

  25. Williams LJ (2014) Framing fracking: public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England (Masters). Durham University

  26. Senjen R, Hansen SF (2011) Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework. CRP 12(7):637–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Panissal N, Brossais E (2012) Citizenship education to nanotechnologies: teaching knowledge about nanotechnologies and educating for responsible citizenship. JSSE – Journal of Social, Science Education, 11 (4)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grunwald A (2012) Responsible nanobiotechnology: philosophy and ethics. Pan Stanford Pub, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Grinbaum A, Groves C (2013) What Is “Responsible” about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, Responsible Innovation, pp 119–142

    Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer, A., Cserer, A., & Schmidt, M. (2013). Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and characterising synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 9 (1), 9.

  31. Durant J, Bauer MW, Gaskell G (1998) Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook. Science Museum, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. Am J Sociol 95(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewenstein, B. V., Gorss, J., & Radin, J. (2005). The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986–2004. Presented at the International Communication Association. Retrieved from https://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/14275/2/LewensteinGorssRadin.2005.NanoMedia.ICA.pdf

  34. Davies SR (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk. Futures 43(3):317–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, 1st edn. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schön DA, Rein M.(1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, N.Y.

  38. Derrida J (1967) L’écriture et la différence. Éditions du Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  39. Strassnig M (2008) Ethics is like a book that one reads when one has time (phd). UniWien, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  40. Scully JL, Banks S, Shakespeare TW (2006) Chance, choice and control: Lay debate on prenatal social sex selection. Soc Sci Med 63(1):21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. MacIntyre A (2007) After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory, 3rd edn. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  42. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jasanoff S (2002) New Modernities: Reimagining Science, Technology and Development. Environ Values 11(3):253–276. doi:10.3197/096327102129341082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2009). Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. (G. Schmid Noerr, Trans.). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press.

  45. Hohendahl PU (1985) The Dialectic of Enlightenment Revisited: Habermas’ Critique of the Frankfurt School. Ger Crit 35:3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. The Avalon Project. (2008). Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.webcitation.org/6Jotty55G

  47. Taylor C (2007) A secular age. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kant, I. (1867). Immanuel Kant’s sämmtliche Werke (Volume 4): in chronologischer Reihenfolge. (G. (Gustav) Hartenstein, Ed.). Leipzig: Leopold Voss.

  49. Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in Context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):111–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Vaughan, N. E. (n.d.). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change.

  51. Scully JL, Shakespeare T, Banks S (2006) Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection. Sociol Health Illn 28(6):749–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Banks S, Leach Scully J, Shakespeare T (2006) Ordinary ethics: lay people’s deliberations on social sex selection. Gen Soc 25(3):289–303

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Welfare and Labour Research, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, P.b. 6954 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, N-0130, Norway

    Erik Thorstensen

Authors
  1. Erik Thorstensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Thorstensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thorstensen, E. Public Involvement and Narrative Fallacies of Nanotechnologies. Nanoethics 8, 227–240 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0202-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0202-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation