, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 131–142 | Cite as

On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm

  • Matthew Kearnes
  • Brian Wynne
Original Paper


The promise of scientific and technological innovation – particularly in fields such as nanotechnology – is increasingly set against what has been articulated as a deficit in public trust in both the new technologies and regulatory mechanisms. Whilst the development of new technology is cast as providing contributions to both quality of life and national competitiveness, what has been termed a ‘legitimacy crisis’ is seen as threatening the vitality of this process. However in contrast to the risk debates that dominated the technological controversies of the late 1990s the vitality of technological innovation is now cast as vulnerable to lack of public confidence and trust in the regulatory and governance structures upon which such innovation depends. In order to address this deficit in public trust, science policy has increasingly turned to the social sciences, suggesting that public values might be incorporated into the development of nanotechnology at an early stage. Public ambivalence therefore constitutes the problem addressed by the increasingly central role that public engagement and participation play in contemporary science policy. Although the recent proliferation of public engagement activities is premised on the need to address this ambivalence through direct engagement, we re-interpret ambivalence as an engaged – rather than passive – mode of relating to technological determinism. Whilst the move toward forms of direct public engagement might be regarded as symptomatic of the emergence of affective mode of governance we interpret public ambivalence as a nested set of enthusiasms and anxieties. Accordingly we suggest that public engagement might be re-thought, utilising ambivalence as a creative resource, rather than as the problem.


Nanotechnology Public engagement Deliberation Ambivalence 



We would like to thank the editors of this special issue and an anonymous reviewer of this paper, for their productive comments. All errors remain, of course, our own.

This paper draws on the ESRC funded project: Nanotechnology, Risk and Sustainability: Moving Public Engagement Upstream (ESRC: RES-338-25-0006). All quoted focus group material stems from this project. We would like to thank the other members of the research team (including Robin Grove-White, Phil Macnaghten, and James Wilsdon).


  1. 1.
    Blair T (2002) Science matters (speech). Available at: (
  2. 2.
    Anderson B (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–;165Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macnaghten PM, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    HM Treasury/Department of Trade and Industry/Department of Education and Skills (2004) Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumann Z (1991) Modernity and ambivalence. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumann Z (1997) Postmodernity and its discontents. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(3):445–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (eds) (1994) Reflexive modernisation: politics, tradition and the aesthetic in modern social order. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S (2000) On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology 34(2):283–304Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kearnes MB, Macnaghten M, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kearnes MB, Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the agriculture biotechnology controversy in the UK. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    HM Government (2005) The Government’s outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies. Department of Trade and Industry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Commission (2004) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Commission of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arnall AH (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and Robotics. Greenpeace, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Economic and Social Research Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Better Regulation Task Force (2003) Scientific research: innovation with controls. Better Regulation Task Force, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting environmental standards. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and society. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Involve (2005) The Nanotechnology Engagement Group: an introduction. Involve, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Department of Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Skills/HM Treasury (2006) Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: annual report 2006. HMSO, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hagendijk RP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42:41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Commission (2002) Science and society action plan. Commission of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wynne B (1995) The public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 361–388Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Michael M, Brown N (2005) Scientific citizenships: self-representations of xenotransplantation’s publics. Sci Cult 14(1):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weber M (1962) Basic concepts in sociology. Peter Owen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rose N (1999) Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eliasoph N (1998) Avoiding politics: how Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Mayer S, Wynne B (1997) Uncertain world: genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain Lancaster. Lancaster University, in association with Unilever, Lancaster, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Irwin A, Wynne B (2000) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anderson B (2006) Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect. Environ Plann D 35(5):733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Massumi B (2005) Fear (The spectrum Said). Positions 13(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Isin I (2004) The neurotic citizen. Citizsh Stud 8(3):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Furedi F (2005) Politics of fear: beyond left and right. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Curtis A (2005) The power of nightmares. BBC, UK (screened: 18 January 2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cohen J (1989) Deliberative democracy and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit P (eds) The good polity. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 17–34Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dryzek JS (1996) Democracy in capitalist times: ideals, limits, and struggles. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political Science. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Joss S, Durant J (eds) (1995) Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. The Science Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Joss S (1999) Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-making – ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Sci Public Policy 26(5):290–293Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schomberg R, Pereira AG, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment: a working document from the European Commission Services. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Elam M, Bertilsson M (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur J Soc Theory 6(2):233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hagendijk RP, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Benhabib S (1996) Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kearnes MB (2006) Chaos and control: nanotechnology and the politics of emergence. Paragraph 29(2):57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kearnes MB (2007) (Re) making matter: design and selection. Area 39(2):143–;155Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mody C (2006) Small, but determined: technological determinism in nanoscience. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 95–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  2. 2.Centre for the Social and Economic Aspects of GenomicsLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations