, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 195–209 | Cite as

Integrating and Enacting ‘Social and Ethical Issues’ in Nanotechnology Practices

Original Paper


The integration of nanotechnology’s ‘social and ethical issues’ (SEI) at the research and development stage is one of the defining features of nanotechnology governance in the United States. Mandated by law, integration extends the field of nanotechnology to include a role for the “social”, the “public” and the social sciences and humanities in research and development (R&D) practices and agendas. Drawing from interviews with scientists, engineers and policymakers who took part in an oral history of the “Future of Nanotechnology” symposium at the Cornell NanoScale Facility, this article examines how nanotechnology’s ‘social and ethical issues’ are brought to life by these practitioners. From our analysis, three modes of enactment emerge: enacting SEI as obligations and problems-to-be-solved, enacting SEI by ‘not doing it’ in the laboratory, and enacting SEI as part of scientific practice. Together they paint a complex picture where SEI are variously defined, made visible or invisible, included and excluded, with participants showing their skill at both boundary-work (Gieryn Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795, 1983, 1999) and at integration. We conclude by reflecting on what this may mean for the design and implementation of SEI integration policies, suggesting that we need to transform SEI from obligations into ‘matters of care’ (Puig de la Bellacasa Soc Stud Sci 41(1):85–106, 2011) that tend to existing relationalities between science and society and implicate practitioners themselves.


Integration Nanotechnology governance Science policy Scientific practice Social and ethical issues 


  1. 1.
    Anderson B (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous (2004, October 21) Going public. Nature 431(7011):883Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barad K (1998) Getting real: technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differ J Fem Cult 10(2):87–107Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston D (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanoparticle Res 10:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvert J, Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(13)):201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doubleday R, Viseu A (2009) Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science? In: Kjolberg K, Wickson F (eds) Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nano sciences and technologies. Pan Stanford Publishing, New Jersey, pp 51–75Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, european commission, Brussels. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from,
  9. 9.
    Fisher E (2005) Lessons learned from ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technol Soc 27:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher E, Mahajan R (2006) Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Sci Public Policy 33(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher E, Mahajan R, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flatow I (2007, June 15) Nanotechnology. Science Friday: Making science user friendly. (New York, NY: National Public Radio.) Retrieved from,
  14. 14.
    Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gieryn TF (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gorman ME, Groves JF, Shrager J (2004) Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 63–73Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grunwald A (2011) Ten years of research on nanotechnology and society—outcomes and achievements. In: Zulsdorf TB, Coenen C, Ferrari A, Fiedeler U, Milburn C (eds) Quantum engagements: Social reflections of nanoscience and emergent technologies. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guston D (2010, May) Societal dimensions research in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. CSPO Report #10-02. (Arizona State University: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes). Retrieved November 17, 2010, from
  19. 19.
    Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14(3):575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haraway D (1991) Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jasanoff S (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):620–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karinen R, Guston D (2010) Toward anticipatory governance: The experience with nanotechnology. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–232Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kavli Institute (2007, June 13) Journalist’s workshop in nanotechnology. Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscience, available:
  27. 27.
    Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Latour B (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Latour B (1988) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Latour B (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. J Crit Inq 30(2):225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lindee S (1994) The ELSI hypothesis. Isis 85(2):293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Markussen T (2006) Moving worlds: the performativity of affective engagement. Fem Theory 7(3):291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCain L (2002) Informing technology policy decisions: the US Human Genome Project’s ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case. Technol Soc 24:111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCarthy E, Kelty C (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnology. Soc Stud Sci 40(3):405–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGinn R (2008) Ethics and nanotechnology: views of nanotechnology researchers. NanoEthics 2:101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGregor J, Wetmore JM (2009) Researching and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. NanoEthics 3:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meslin EM, Thomson EJ, Boyer JT (1997) Bioethics inside the beltway: the ethical, legal, and social implications research program at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 7(3):291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mody CCM (2008) The larger world of nano. Phys Today 61:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (2005, March) The national nanotechnology initiative: Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from
  41. 41.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (2011, February) National nanotechnology initiative strategic plan 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2012 from
  42. 42.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council, (2000, July) National nanotechnology initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan. Retrieved June 14, 2007 from
  43. 43.
    Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5(2):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2008, April) The national nanotechnology initiative: Second assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Retrieved June 14, 2007 from
  45. 45.
    U.S. Public Law 108–153 (2003) 21st century nanotechnology research and development act. 108th Congress. Retrieved June 12, 2008 from
  46. 46.
    Puig de la Bellacasa M (2011) Matters of care in technoscience: assembling neglected things. Soc Stud Sci 41(1):85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rip A (2002) Co-evolution of science, technology and society. Expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung and Forschung’s Förderinitiative ‘Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft’ (Science Policy Studies), managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rip A (2006) A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In: Voss JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–100Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rip A (2009) Futures of ELSA. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(7):666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Roberts L (1993) Whither the ELSI program? Hastings Cent Rep 23(6):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: NSET workshop report. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (Dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwood S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston D (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):732–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schuurbiers D (2011) What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):769–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(5):424–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Snow CP (2001 [1959]) The two cultures. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stegmaier P (2009) The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep 10(2):114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Suchman L (1999) Working relations of technology production and use. In: MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) The social shaping of technology, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 258–265Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van Oudheusden M (2011) Questioning ‘participation’: a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):673–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Webster A (2007) Crossing boundaries: social science in the policy room. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(4):458–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wolfe A (2000) Federal policy making for biotechnology, executive branch, ELSI. In: Murray TH, Mehlman MJ (eds) Encyclopedia of ethical, legal and policy issues in biotechnology, Vol. 1. Wiley, New York, pp 234–240Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wolfe A (2001) Essay review: ELSI’s revenge. J Hist Biol 34:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wynne B (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. SAGE Publication, Thousand Oaks, pp 361–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wynne B (2001) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3):281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wynne B (2007) Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(4):491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesTorontoCanada
  3. 3.ISCTE-IULLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Communications and CultureYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations