Skip to main content
Log in

How social science should complement scientific discovery: lessons from nanoscience

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the state of social science of science, particularly nanoscience. It reviews what has been done and offers a series of constructive criticisms. It examines some of the problems associated with experts and expertise and itemizes challenges we confront dealing with them. It presages some of the social science research work that we may consider to embrace in the future.

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

Access this article

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

Notes

  1. Mea culpa. I find I am always second-guessing myself. I am not a formally trained scientist and never have claimed to be. I read as much as I can about the science and technology because I enjoy it. I am asked to review communication on science and technology as part of my duties at NCSU and in the many grants about which I have been associated. While some researchers try to learn about the science about which their scientist colleagues are engaged, many simply do not. How this impacts communication between scientists and social scientists remains an important concern and a rich field of study.

References

  • Adler J (2014) The reformation: can social scientists save themselves. Pacific Standard. May/June. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/can-social-scientists-save-themselves-humanbehavior-78858/. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Ayyub B (2001) Elicitations of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC Press, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ball P (2005) Computer conference welcomes gobbledygook paper. Nature 424:946

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube D (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 10:23–37 & Reply from David Berube. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2008. 10:265-266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube D (2013a) Socialis commodis and life cycle analysis: a critical examination of uncertainty. In: Savage N, Gorman M, Street A (eds) Emerging Technologies: Socio-Behavioral Life Cycle Approaches. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, pp 139–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berube D (2013b) The grant landscape for communication scholars. Spectra 49(4):22–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube D, Cummings C (2016) Convergence in ethical implications and communication of emerging technologies. In: Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) Handbook of science and technology convergence. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 755–766

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berube D, Cummings C, Frith J, Binder A, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3089–3099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski H, Fiore S, Hall K, Keyton J, Spring H, Stokols D, Trochim W, Uzzi B (2010) A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci Transl Med 2:49 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/49/49cm24.short . Accessed December 31, 2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosso C (2016) Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 18:163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3451-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Pol Res 30(5):512–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerejo C (2013) What are the most common reasons for retraction? Editage Insights. 16 October

  • Chamorro-Premuzic T (2014) How the web distorts reality and impairs our judgement skills. The Guardian. Retrieved 15 June 2016

  • Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. Manag Sci 14(4):B141–B142

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2016) Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings C, Berube D, Lavelle M (2013) Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories of environmental health and safety risks. J Risk Res 16(10):1277–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson D (2017) Are we keeping pace as leaders? April 21. https://dougdickerson.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/are-we-keeping-pace-as-leaders/. Accessed 13 Nov 2017

  • Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2011) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German Press. Sci Commun 24(1):5–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Doubleday, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning D (2011) The Dunning-Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 44:247–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted papers. PNAS 109(42):17028–17033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt U, Fouché R, Miller C, Smith-Doer L (2016) The handbook of science and technology studies, Fourth edn. MIT Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2015) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, Oxfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman S, Egolf B (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal 31(11):1701–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology & sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nanosunscreens. Available http://www.foe.org/nano_sunscreens_guide/Nano_Sunscreens.pdf. Cited 29 Sept 2007

  • Guston D (2010) Societal Dimensions Research in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. CSPO Report # 10–02. http://cspo.org/legacy/library/100701F7WL_lib_CSPOReportGuston.pdf . Accessed 13 Dec 2017

  • Guston D, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Sci 24(1–2):93109

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloran J (2010) 1.2 What is scientific about social science? https://www.le.ac.uk/oerresources/media/ms7500/mod1unit2/page_03.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2017

  • Hamlett P, Cobb M, Guston D (2012) National citizens’ technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Kennedy School (2013) What is STS? http://sts.hks.harvard.edu/about/whatissts.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2017

  • Heath C, Heath D (2007) Made to stick: why some ideas survive and others die. Random House, New York

  • Internet Society (2017) Internet society global interim report 2017: paths to our digital future. Internet Society, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S, Markle G, Peterson J, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired

  • Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig B (2015) Symposium: should we offer genomic research results to a participant's family, including after the participant's death? The journal of law. Med Ethics 43:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolata G (2013) Scientific articles accepted (Personal checks, too). The New York Times. April 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudoacademia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Lacour S (2012) Emerging questions for emerging technologies: is there a law for the nano? In: Brayner R, Fiévet F, Coradin T (eds) Nanomaterials: a danger or a promise? A chemical and biological perspective. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 357–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Hu D, Dang Y, Chen H, Roco M, Larson C, Chan J (2008) Nano mapper: an Internet knowledge mapping system for nanotechnology development. J Nanopart Res 11(3):529–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin A (2006) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 31. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 90. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=934635

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Monica J, Foss S, Davis T (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bus:203–220

  • McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY, Rothenberg KH, Lockhart NC, Guyer MS (2014) The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 15:481–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers MS (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnyusiwalla A, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3):R9–R13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naik G (2011) Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal. August 10. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303627104576411850666582080. Accessed 19 June 2014

  • Newman L (2014) A journal is retracting 60 papers because of peer review fraud. Future Tense: The Citizen’s Guide to the Future

  • Nohynek G, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts M (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oransky I (2012) Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who faked emails to do his own peer review. Retraction Watch. September 17. http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/hyung-inmoon/. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Oransky I (2014) SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted. Retraction Watch. July 8. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/08/sage-publications-busts-peer-reviewand-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted/. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Oransky (2016) Tribecca Film Festival pulls Wakefield vaccine film from schedule. Retraction Watch. March 26. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/26/tribeca-film-festival-pulls-wakefield-vaccine-filmfrom-schedule/. Accessed 28 Mar 2016

  • Rabinow P, Stavrianakis A (2013) Demands of the day: on the logic of anthropological inquiry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

  • Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Washington, DC: NSF. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2017

  • Rogers P, Puryear R, Root J (2013) Infobesity: the enemy of good decisions. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/infobesity-the-enemy-of-good-decisions.aspx. Accessed 13 Nov 2017

  • Romig A, Baker A, Johannes J, Zipperian T, Eijkel K, Kirchhoff B, Mann H, Rao C, Walsh S (2007) An introduction to nanotechnology policy: opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(9):1634–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothlauf J (2015) A global view on intercultural management: challenges in a globalized world. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sample I (2014) How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia. The Guardian. February 24. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fakepapers-flooding-academia. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Schooler J (2011) Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470(4):437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J, Baird D (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Selin C (2007) Expectations and emergency of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira P, Youtie J (2011) Introduction to the symposium issue: nanotechnology innovation and policy—current strategies and future trajectories. J Technol Transf 36(6):581–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo S (2003) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen RG (2011) Retraction in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 249–253

  • Stevens L (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 

  • Tetlock P, Gardner D (2015) Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Broadway Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noorden R (2014) Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763. February 24. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Vergano D (2013) Fake cancer study spotlights bogus science journals. National Geographic Daily News. October 3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-sciencespoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/. Accessed 7 Oct 2014

  • Webster M Jr, Sell J (2005) Laboratory Experiments in Social Science. In: Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic Press, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger D (2011) Too big to know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. Basic Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Yawson R, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10(6):981–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, CCE-STEM SES1540244 and NNCI-RTNN ECCS 1542015. All comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCSU, the RTNN, and the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Berube.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This article is part of the topical collection: 20th Anniversary Issue: From the editors

Nicola Pinna, Executive Editor, Mike Roco, Editor-in-Chief

This article has been drawn in part from a brief piece of mine submitted as part of a decadal survey of social and behavioral sciences (SBS), the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee for the Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bbcss/dbasse_175673), and a Power Point presentation of mine on December 13, 2017, at the annual Grantees Meeting held at the Westin Arlington Gateway sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berube, D.M. How social science should complement scientific discovery: lessons from nanoscience. J Nanopart Res 20, 120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4210-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4210-x

Keywords

Navigation