, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 213–230 | Cite as

Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’

  • Lieve Goorden
  • Michiel Van Oudheusden
  • Johan Evers
  • Marian Deblonde
Original Paper


The main objective of the Flemish research project ‘Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society’ (NanoSoc) is to develop and try out an interactive process as a suitable methodology for rendering nanoresearchers aware of underlying assumptions that guide nanotech research and integrating social considerations into the research choices they face. In particular, the NanoSoc process should sustain scientists’ capacities to address growing uncertainties on the strategic, scientific and public acceptance level. The article elaborates on these uncertainties and involved dilemmas scientists are facing and proposes a process approach which addresses strategic uncertainty by alternating between ‘visioning’ and ‘technology assessment’; a process design which manages complexity by promoting reflexivity among scientists by exposing them to deliberations in civil society (social experts, stakeholders, citizens) on plausible futures with nanotechnologies; and as an answer to societal ambivalence, certain process quality requirements such as an attitude of perplexity or openness towards ‘plurality’ and an attitude of ‘temporary closure’, both in support of understanding and learning from differences.


Interactive technology assessment Plurality Uncertainty Closure Narratives Reflexivity of scientists 


  1. 1.
    Anderson A (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arendt H (1958) The human condition. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bensaude-Vincent B (2006) Two cultures of nanotechnology? In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges, implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, London, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berne RW, Schummer J (2005) Teaching societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to engineering students through science fiction. Bull Sci Technol Soc 25(6):459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvino I (1988) Six memos for the next millennium. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claeys J, Debusscher M, Elchardus M, Smets L (2004) Biotechnologie in de publieke sfeer. Vakgroep Sociologie, Onderzoeksgroep TOR, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crow M, Sarewitz D (2000, September) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. Paper presented at the National Science and Technology Council, Workshop on Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, NSFGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deblonde M, Barriat V, Warrant F, Goorden L, Valenduc G (2005) Science and precaution in interactive risk evaluation: SPIRE. Belgian Science Policy, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Vries MJ (2006) Analyzing the complexity of nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges, implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, London, pp 165–179Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dryzek JS, Niemeyer SJ (2003, August) Paper for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dupuy JP (2004) Complexity and uncertainty, a prudential approach to nanotechnology. A contribution to the work in progress of the ‘Foresighting the new technology wave’. High-Level Expert Group, European Commission, Brussels. Retrieved from
  12. 12.
    European Communities, Special Eurobarometer (2005) Social values, science and technology, June, 2005Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Communities (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, Communication from the Commission, research DG, retrieved from
  14. 14.
    Fisher E, Mahajan RL (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Funtowicz S (2007) Van bewijsvoering door deskundigen tot participatieve Dialoog. In: viWTA Series ‘Wetenschap, Maatschappij, Politiek: wie stuurt wie? Flemish Parliament, Brussels, pp 11–26Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garreau J (2005) Radical evolution: the promise and peril of enhancing our minds, our bodies—and what it means to be human. Doubleday, USGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glimell H (2004) Grand visions and lilliput politics: staging the exploration of the ‘endless frontier’. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 231–246Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goorden L (2004) “Innovation policy and technology assessment in Flanders”. Study Commissioned by the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goorden L (2006) Met nieuwe participatieve praktijken naar een betere afstemming tussen het maatschappelijke en het politieke debat. Ethiek Maatsch 9(1):76–83Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol 1. Presenting futures. Springer, Tempe, Arizona, pp 163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grin J, Felix F, Bos B (2003, August) Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Paper for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grunwald A (2006) Nanotechnologie als Chiffre der Zukunft. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 49–80Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2006) Real time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanssen L, Walhout B, Van Est R (2008) Tien lessen voor een nanodialoog Stand van het debat rondom nanotechnologie. Rathenau Instituut, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hosper GJ (2002) Clusterbeleid tussen trend en traditie. Tijdschr Wet Technol Samenlev 10(4):152–156Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hottois G (2003) Aan gene zijde van de biopolitiek? In: Stengers I, Hottois G (eds) Wetenschappelijke en Bio-ethische praktijken. Damon, Budel, pp 68–87Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hullmann A (2006) The economic development of nanotechnology: an indicators based analysis. European Comission, Brussels, November 28th 2006. [online] [11/01/2007]
  30. 30.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janich P (2006) Wissenschaftstheorie der Nanotechnologie. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz AS (eds) Nanotechnologien im kontext. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jans E (2006) Let’s crash, not clash. In: Toneelg(e)ruis 1, pp 139–142Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jasanoff S (2006) Designs on nature, science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jasanoff S (2002) Citizens at risk: cultures of modernity in the US and EU. Sci Cult 11:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation, cultural cognition project working paper No.22. ( Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kunneman H (2005) Voorbij het dikke-ik. Uitgeverij SWP, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Latour B (2004) Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lopez J (2004) Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology. Special issue on ‘Nanotech Challenges’. HYLE 10(2):129–152Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lösch A (2006a) Anticipating the future of nanotechnology: some thoughts on the boundaries of sociotechnological visions. Department of Sociology, Technical University Darmstadt, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lösch A (2006b) Means of communicating innovations. A case study for the analysis and assessment of nanotechnology’s futuristic visions. Sti-studies 2:103–125Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mody CCM (2004) Small, but determined: technological determinism in nanoscience. HYLE 10(2):99–128Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nordmann A (2002) Converging technologies: shaping the future of European Societies. European Commission, Brussels, 64 pp. [online] [11/01/2007]
  44. 44.
    Nordmann A (2003, December) Nanotechnology:Convergence and Integration. Paper presented at the EuroNanoForum, TriesteGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nordmann A (2004) Molecular disjunctions: staking claims at the nanoscale. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nordmann A (2006, Oktober) Design choices in the nanoworld: a space odyssey. Paper presented at the UCSIA Conference ‘Nano-researchers facing choices’, University of AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoEthics. Nanoethics 1:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pirsig RM (1974) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Corgi Book, London, p 109Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Renn O, Roco MC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. White paper no.2, International Risk Governance Council, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rip A (2005) Technology assessment as part of the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society: the thrust of the TA Program in NanoNed. Paper contributed to the Conference on “Nanotechnology in Science, Economy and Society”, Marburg.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15:349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schiemann G (2006) Kein Weg vorbei an der Natur: Natur als gegenpart und Voraussetzung der Nanotechnologie. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwartz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, Ethische und Gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlaggesellschaft, Berlin, pp 115–130Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54(2&3):251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shrader-Frechette KS (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical conditions for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sloterdijk P (2006) Het Kristalpaleis, Een filosofie van de globalisering. SUN, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    STOA (Scientific Technology Options Assessment) (2006) Technology assessment on converging technologies, Report commissioned by the European ParliamentGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swierstra J, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Toumey CP (2006) Narratives for nanotech: anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges, implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, London, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van de Poel I (2000) On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 12(3):383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Van Oudheusden M, Evers J (2008, April) Assessing citizens’ moral argumentations on nanotechnologies: an incentive to reconsider the interactive technology assessment approach to new and emerging technologies. Paper submitted at the Science and Technology in Society Conference in Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vasterling V (2007) Cognitive theory and phenomenology in Arendt’s and Nussbaum’s work on narrative. Hum Stud 30:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Verbeek PP (2006) Ethiek en Technologie. Moreel actorschap en subjectiviteit in een technologische cultuur. Ethisce Perspect 16(3):267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Whitesides GM (2003) Science and education for nanoscience and nanotechnology. In: Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology—Improving benefits to humanity. NSET and NSF Springer, Arlington VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Worth S (2006) Narrative knowledge: knowing through storytelling. Furman University, Greenville, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lieve Goorden
    • 1
  • Michiel Van Oudheusden
    • 1
  • Johan Evers
    • 2
  • Marian Deblonde
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations