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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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
Ball P (2005) Computer conference welcomes gobbledygook paper. Nature 424:946
Berube D (2004) The rhetoric of nanotechnology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 173–192
Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst
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
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
Berube D (2013b) The grant landscape for communication scholars. Spectra 49(4):22–25
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
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
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
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
Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Pol Res 30(5):512–548
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
Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2016) Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):111–132
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
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
Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Doubleday, NY
Dunning D (2011) The Dunning-Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 44:247–296
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted papers. PNAS 109(42):17028–17033
Felt U, Fouché R, Miller C, Smith-Doer L (2016) The handbook of science and technology studies, Fourth edn. MIT Press, NY
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2015) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, Oxfordshire
Friedman S, Egolf B (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal 31(11):1701–1717
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
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
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
Jasanoff S, Markle G, Peterson J, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
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
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
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
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
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
Meyers MS (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–183
Mnyusiwalla A, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3):R9–R13
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
Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274
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
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
Rothlauf J (2015) A global view on intercultural management: challenges in a globalized world. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin
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
Schummer J, Baird D (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, Singapore
Selin C (2007) Expectations and emergency of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220
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
Sismondo S (2003) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, Oxford
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
Tetlock P, Gardner D (2015) Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Broadway Books, NY
Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, NY
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
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
Yawson R, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–322
Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10(6):981–986
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4210-x