Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Europe, two thirds of the total funds for nanotechnological research originates from public sources. In the United States public sources amount to about 50%; in Japan they account for one third. For the emerging Asian countries the public share is around 36% (Source: [29]).

  2. This written poll ‘Biotechnology in the public sphere’ by Claeys et al. was conducted between February and May 2002 and involves a representative sample of 5,083 respondents in Belgium. The inquiry aims at first relating perceived risks and benefits of genetic applications (with plants, animals and humans) with attitudes of acceptance of these technologies, and secondly translating this balancing of risks and benefits into particular (new?) societal differences.

  3. This on-line survey by Kahan et al. was conducted in December 2006 and involves a representative sample of 1,850 Americans whose knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology were assessed, both in the presence (information on a wide variety of applications) and in the absence of information about nanotechnology’s risks and benefits.

  4. For instance a majority of the respondents would never approve the use of a memory enhancing brain implant, while readily accepting a hearing implant. This poll was conducted between January and February of 2005 by the Directorate General Research of the European Commission. The results were first published in Eurobarometer 225 under the title “Social values, Science and Technology”. For more information, see http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf (Source: EC, Special Eurobarometer, Social Values, Science and Technology, June 2005, p. 81).

  5. Flemish Council for Science policy, Conference: Innovation paradox:, Is every step ahead also a step higher up? What is Flanders doing? What is Europe accomplishing? Brussels, 21 November 2006.

  6. EC communication ‘Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology’ [13].

  7. ‘GM Nation?’ the UK’s public debate on GM crops, announced in July 2002 by the government.

  8. On issues such as the storage of low-level radioactive waste, food safety, animal food production

  9. The United States Government’s Report on ‘Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance’ [52] and the European Commission’s Report ‘Converging Technologies—Shaping the Future of European Societies’ [43].

  10. ‘Technology Note’ of the Flemish Government, 1994.

  11. On: biotechnology, new materials and energy, and environmental technology.

  12. These included the Flemish Institute of Biotechnology (VIB), The Research Center on Nuclear Energy (SCK), The Flemish Institute of Technology Research (VITO), the Flemish Institute for the Promotion of Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), and the Flanders Technology Foundation (STV).

  13. In 2002, the European Councel held in Barcelona decided that every European member state should spend 3% of its GDP on R&D by 2010. Two-thirds of the investment should come from private funding. In 2003 Flanders committed to this objective by launching its so-called Innovation Pact.

  14. IMEC: Interuniversity Micro-Electronics Institute, Leuven, Belgium; EMAT: Electronic Microscopy for Material Research, Fysics Department, University of Antwerp; both partners inNanoSoc.

References

  1. Anderson A (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arendt H (1958) The human condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  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 7–28

    Google Scholar 

  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):459–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Calvino I (1988) Six memos for the next millennium. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  6. Claeys J, Debusscher M, Elchardus M, Smets L (2004) Biotechnologie in de publieke sfeer. Vakgroep Sociologie, Onderzoeksgroep TOR, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel

    Google Scholar 

  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, NSF

  8. Deblonde M, Barriat V, Warrant F, Goorden L, Valenduc G (2005) Science and precaution in interactive risk evaluation: SPIRE. Belgian Science Policy, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  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 165–179

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dryzek JS, Niemeyer SJ (2003, August) Paper for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia

  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 http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php

  12. European Communities, Special Eurobarometer (2005) Social values, science and technology, June, 2005

  13. European Communities (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, Communication from the Commission, research DG, retrieved from http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology

  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):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Funtowicz S (2007) Van bewijsvoering door deskundigen tot participatieve Dialoog. In: viWTA Series ‘Wetenschap, Maatschappij, Politiek: wie stuurt wie? Flemish Parliament, Brussels, pp 11–26

  17. Garreau J (2005) Radical evolution: the promise and peril of enhancing our minds, our bodies—and what it means to be human. Doubleday, US

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 231–246

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goorden L (2004) “Innovation policy and technology assessment in Flanders”. Study Commissioned by the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment

  21. Goorden L (2006) Met nieuwe participatieve praktijken naar een betere afstemming tussen het maatschappelijke en het politieke debat. Ethiek Maatsch 9(1):76–83

    Google Scholar 

  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 163–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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, Philadelphia

  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 49–80

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2006) Real time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hanssen L, Walhout B, Van Est R (2008) Tien lessen voor een nanodialoog Stand van het debat rondom nanotechnologie. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hosper GJ (2002) Clusterbeleid tussen trend en traditie. Tijdschr Wet Technol Samenlev 10(4):152–156

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hottois G (2003) Aan gene zijde van de biopolitiek? In: Stengers I, Hottois G (eds) Wetenschappelijke en Bio-ethische praktijken. Damon, Budel, pp 68–87

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hullmann A (2006) The economic development of nanotechnology: an indicators based analysis. European Comission, Brussels, November 28th 2006. [online] http://cordis.europa.eu./nanotechnology [11/01/2007]

  30. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Janich P (2006) Wissenschaftstheorie der Nanotechnologie. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz AS (eds) Nanotechnologien im kontext. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jans E (2006) Let’s crash, not clash. In: Toneelg(e)ruis 1, pp 139–142

  33. Jasanoff S (2006) Designs on nature, science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jasanoff S (2002) Citizens at risk: cultures of modernity in the US and EU. Sci Cult 11:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. (dan.kahan@yale.edu)

  36. Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kunneman H (2005) Voorbij het dikke-ik. Uitgeverij SWP, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  38. Latour B (2004) Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lopez J (2004) Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology. Special issue on ‘Nanotech Challenges’. HYLE 10(2):129–152

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lösch A (2006a) Anticipating the future of nanotechnology: some thoughts on the boundaries of sociotechnological visions. Department of Sociology, Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lösch A (2006b) Means of communicating innovations. A case study for the analysis and assessment of nanotechnology’s futuristic visions. Sti-studies 2:103–125

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mody CCM (2004) Small, but determined: technological determinism in nanoscience. HYLE 10(2):99–128

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nordmann A (2002) Converging technologies: shaping the future of European Societies. European Commission, Brussels, 64 pp. [online] http://www.ntnu.no/2020/pdf/final_report_en.pdf [11/01/2007]

  44. Nordmann A (2003, December) Nanotechnology:Convergence and Integration. Paper presented at the EuroNanoForum, Trieste

  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 51–62

    Google Scholar 

  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 Antwerp

  47. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoEthics. Nanoethics 1:31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pirsig RM (1974) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Corgi Book, London, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  49. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. White paper no.2, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

  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.

  51. Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15:349–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, United States

    Google Scholar 

  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 115–130

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54(2&3):251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shrader-Frechette KS (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical conditions for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sloterdijk P (2006) Het Kristalpaleis, Een filosofie van de globalisering. SUN, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  57. STOA (Scientific Technology Options Assessment) (2006) Technology assessment on converging technologies, Report commissioned by the European Parliament

  58. Swierstra J, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1:3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 383–411

    Google Scholar 

  60. Van de Poel I (2000) On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 12(3):383–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, DC

  62. Vasterling V (2007) Cognitive theory and phenomenology in Arendt’s and Nussbaum’s work on narrative. Hum Stud 30:79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Verbeek PP (2006) Ethiek en Technologie. Moreel actorschap en subjectiviteit in een technologische cultuur. Ethisce Perspect 16(3):267–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  65. Worth S (2006) Narrative knowledge: knowing through storytelling. Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The research project ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society’ is funded by the Flemish Institute IWT (Institute for the Support of Innovation by Science and Technology) in its programme ‘Strategic Basic Research’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieve Goorden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goorden, L., Van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J. et al. Lose One Another ... and Find One Another in Nanospace. ‘Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow’s Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders (NanoSoc)’. Nanoethics 2, 213–230 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x

Keywords

Navigation