Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The public value of nanotechnology?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science and innovation policy (SIP) is typically justified in terms of public values while SIP program assessments are typically limited to economic terms that imperfectly take into account these values. The study of public values through public value mapping (PVM) lacks widely-accepted methods for systematically identifying value structures within SIP and its public policy processes, especially when there are multiple stakeholder groups. This paper advances the study of public values in SIP using nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) policy by demonstrating that quantitative analysis of value statements can provide a credible and robust basis for policy analysis. We use content analysis of over 1,000 documents with over 100,000 pages from major contributors to the NSE policy discourse to identify and analyze a wide range of public value statements. Data analysis and reduction methods reveal a multifactor structure of public values that has been consistently cited by a range of actors in an NSE research policy network.

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

Notes

  1. The two terms ‘nanotechnology’ and ‘NSE’ are closely related but not exactly synonyms. We use ‘NSE’ primarily, except where ‘nanotechnology’ provides greater accuracy or appears in a quotation.

  2. PVM was initially developed by the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) as part of a Rockefeller Foundation grant and, more recently, through the support of the NSFs Science of Science Policy (SciSIP) program.

  3. For instance, the related international STIR (Socio-Technical Integration Research) project (NSF #0849101) investigates the feasibility of integrating public and social values into laboratory research (http://cns.asu.edu/stir/).

References

  • Altmann, J. (2004). Military uses of nanotechnology: Perspectives and concerns. Security Dialogue, 35(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (1995). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, W. S. (2004). Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: Research methodologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D. M. (2005). Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Laredo, P., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Understanding the emergence and deployment of ‘Nano’ S&T: Introduction. Research Policy, 36(6), 807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buiter, W. H. (1981). The superiority of contingent rules over fixed rules in models with rational expectations. The Economic Journal, 91(363), 647–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, N. (2006). The NELSI imperative: Nano ethical, legal, and societal issues, and federal policy development. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 3, 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., & Taylor, L. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., Maccallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society, 27(3), 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy, 33, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goorden, L., Van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., & Deblonde, M. (2008). Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Volume 1: Presenting futures (p. 303). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19(2), 149–161.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration Society, 39(3), 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, M. S., & Jorrgensen, U. (2009). Green technology foresight of high technology: A social shaping of technology approach to the analysis of hopes and hypes. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21, 363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krepinevich, A. F. (1994). Cavalry to computer; the pattern of military revolutions. National Interest, 37, 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? London: Routledge Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovy, H. (2004). Military nano complex, Howard Lovy’s nanobot. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2004/08/military-nano-complex.html.

  • Lubick, N. (2009). Promising green nanomaterials. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(5), 1247–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2000). The sources of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordan, M. M. (2005). “Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?” Testimony before the Research Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Matthew M. Nordan, Vice President of Research, Lux Research Inc.

  • Norton, B., & Noonan, D. (2007). Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSTC—National Science and Technology Council. (Dec 2004). Committee of Technology; Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

  • NSTC—National Science and Technology Council. (Dec 2007). Committee of Technology; Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

  • NSTC—National Science and Technology Council. (2009). Committee on Technology; Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology. Research and development leading to revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the President’s 2010 budget. Washington, DC.

  • NVIVO. (2009). Product notes. Retrieved January 26, 2010 from www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx.

  • OECD. (1995). Cost/benefit analysis of large S&T projects: Some methodological issues. Paris: OCDE/GD (95)57. http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/ms/prod/e_95-57.pdf.

  • PEN—Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2010). Consumer products: An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/.

  • Ratner, D., & Ratner, M. A. (2004). Nanotechnology and homeland security: New weapons for new wars. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, R. J. (1967). Understanding factor analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11(4), 444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., & Woodhouse, E. (2003). Small is powerful. In A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz, & C. Dresser (Eds.), Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery (pp. 63–84). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, A. E. (2009). Green dreams of reason. Green nanotechnology between visions of excess and control. NanoEthics, 3(2), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, R. (2006). Exploring congruence between Habermasian philosophy, mixed-method research, and managing data using NVivo. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2): Article 3. Retrieved June 16, 2009 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_2/pdf/smyth.pdf.

  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2009). Stata statistical software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/cite.html.

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1948). Psychological implications of factor analysis. American Psychologist, 3(9), 402–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipping, M. E., & Bishop, C. M. (1999). Probabilistic principal component analysis. Royal Statistical Society Series B, 61(3), 611–622.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • US Congress. (2003). The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, P.L. 108–193.

  • Van Den Beselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (1996). Mapping change in scientific specialties; a scientometric case study of the development of artificial intelligence. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 47, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermolen, T. D. (2006). Molecular nanotechnology and national security. Air and Space Power Journal, 20(3), 96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and Global Studies, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes (CSPO) and Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Erik Fisher

  2. Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Catherine P. Slade

  3. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes (CSPO), Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Derrick Anderson

  4. Ander Crenshaw Chair and Regents’ Professor Public Policy, Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Erik Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine P. Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Derrick Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derrick Anderson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fisher, E., Slade, C.P., Anderson, D. et al. The public value of nanotechnology?. Scientometrics 85, 29–39 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0237-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0237-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation