How social science should complement scientific discovery: lessons from nanoscience

  • David M. BerubeEmail author
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 20th Anniversary Issue: From the editors


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.


Nanoscience Nanotechnology Social science Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology SEIN Experts Expertise 


Funding information

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Adler J (2014) The reformation: can social scientists save themselves. Pacific Standard. May/June. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  2. Ayyub B (2001) Elicitations of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC Press, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball P (2005) Computer conference welcomes gobbledygook paper. Nature 424:946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berube D (2004) The rhetoric of nanotechnology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 173–192Google Scholar
  5. Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 10:265-266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berube D (2013b) The grant landscape for communication scholars. Spectra 49(4):22–25Google Scholar
  9. 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 755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):3089–3099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 . Accessed December 31, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bosso C (2016) Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 18:163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Pol Res 30(5):512–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerejo C (2013) What are the most common reasons for retraction? Editage Insights. 16 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  15. Chamorro-Premuzic T (2014) How the web distorts reality and impairs our judgement skills. The Guardian. Retrieved 15 June 2016Google Scholar
  16. Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. Manag Sci 14(4):B141–B142Google Scholar
  17. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2016) Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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):1277–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickerson D (2017) Are we keeping pace as leaders? April 21. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  21. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2011) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German Press. Sci Commun 24(1):5–29Google Scholar
  22. Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Doubleday, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunning D (2011) The Dunning-Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 44:247–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted papers. PNAS 109(42):17028–17033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felt U, Fouché R, Miller C, Smith-Doer L (2016) The handbook of science and technology studies, Fourth edn. MIT Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2015) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman S, Egolf B (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal 31(11):1701–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology & sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nanosunscreens. Available Cited 29 Sept 2007
  29. Guston D (2010) Societal Dimensions Research in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. CSPO Report # 10–02. . Accessed 13 Dec 2017
  30. Guston D, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Sci 24(1–2):93109Google Scholar
  31. Halloran J (2010) 1.2 What is scientific about social science? Accessed 18 Dec 2017
  32. Hamlett P, Cobb M, Guston D (2012) National citizens’ technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvard Kennedy School (2013) What is STS? Accessed 18 Dec 2017
  34. Heath C, Heath D (2007) Made to stick: why some ideas survive and others die. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Internet Society (2017) Internet society global interim report 2017: paths to our digital future. Internet Society, RestonGoogle Scholar
  36. Jasanoff S, Markle G, Peterson J, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. WiredGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 43:3Google Scholar
  40. Kolata G (2013) Scientific articles accepted (Personal checks, too). The New York Times. April 7. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  41. 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 357–378Google Scholar
  42. 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):529–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin A (2006) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 31. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 90. Available at SSRN:
  44. Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Monica J, Foss S, Davis T (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bus:203–220Google Scholar
  45. 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 15:481–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyers MS (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3):R9–R13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Naik G (2011) Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal. August 10. Accessed 19 June 2014
  49. Newman L (2014) A journal is retracting 60 papers because of peer review fraud. Future Tense: The Citizen’s Guide to the FutureGoogle Scholar
  50. Nohynek G, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts M (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oransky I (2012) Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who faked emails to do his own peer review. Retraction Watch. September 17. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  53. Oransky I (2014) SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted. Retraction Watch. July 8. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  54. Oransky (2016) Tribecca Film Festival pulls Wakefield vaccine film from schedule. Retraction Watch. March 26. Accessed 28 Mar 2016
  55. Rabinow P, Stavrianakis A (2013) Demands of the day: on the logic of anthropological inquiry. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169Google Scholar
  57. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Washington, DC: NSF. Accessed 31 Dec 2017
  58. Rogers P, Puryear R, Root J (2013) Infobesity: the enemy of good decisions. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  59. 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):1634–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rothlauf J (2015) A global view on intercultural management: challenges in a globalized world. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sample I (2014) How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia. The Guardian. February 24. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  62. Schooler J (2011) Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470(4):437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schummer J, Baird D (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Selin C (2007) Expectations and emergency of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shapira P, Youtie J (2011) Introduction to the symposium issue: nanotechnology innovation and policy—current strategies and future trajectories. J Technol Transf 36(6):581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sismondo S (2003) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Steen RG (2011) Retraction in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 249–253Google Scholar
  68. Stevens L (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tetlock P, Gardner D (2015) Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Broadway Books, NYGoogle Scholar
  70. Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, NYGoogle Scholar
  71. van Noorden R (2014) Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News. February 24. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  72. Vergano D (2013) Fake cancer study spotlights bogus science journals. National Geographic Daily News. October 3. Accessed 7 Oct 2014
  73. Webster M Jr, Sell J (2005) Laboratory Experiments in Social Science. In: Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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, NYGoogle Scholar
  75. Yawson R, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10(6):981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology CommunicationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations